Jihočeská univerzita v Českých BudějovicíchPedagogická fakultaKatedra anglistiky

Diplomová práce

Linking in present-day English

Vypracoval: Bc. Jaroslav EmmerVedoucí práce: PhDr. Vladislav Smolka, Ph.D.

České Budějovice 2014

Prohlašuji, že svoji diplomovou práci jsem vypracoval pouze s použitím pramenů a

literatury uvedených v seznamu citované literatury.

Prohlašuji, že v souladu s § 47b zákona č. 111/1998 Sb. v platném znění souhlasím se

zveřejněním své diplomové práce, a to v nezkrácené podobě elektronickou cestou ve

veřejně přístupné části databáze STAG provozované Jihočeskou univerzitou v Českých

Budějovicích na jejích internetových stránkách, a to se zachováním mého autorského

práva k odevzdanému textu této kvalifikační práce. Souhlasím dále s tím, aby toutéž

elektronickou cestou byly v souladu s uvedeným ustanovením zákona č. 111/1998 Sb.

zveřejněny posudky školitele a oponentů práce i záznam o průběhu a výsledku obhajoby

kvalifikační práce. Rovněž souhlasím s porovnáním textu mé kvalifikační práce s

databází kvalifikačních prací Theses.cz provozovanou Národním registrem

vysokoškolských kvalifikačních prací a systémem na odhalování plagiátů.

V Českých Budějovicích, dne 27. června 2014

………………………………

Jaroslav Emmer

1

Na tomto místě bych chtěl poděkovat PhDr. Vladislavu Smolkovi, Ph.D. za jeho

podnětné rady a připomínky. Diskuze s ním byly v průběhu mého studia vždy zajímavé

a inspirativní.

Dále bych chtěl poděkovat všem účastníkům mého výzkumu, bez jejichž spolupráce by

tato práce nemohla vzniknout.

Here, I would like to thank PhDr. Vladislav Smolka, Ph.D. for his inspiring advice and

comments. During my studies, discussions with him were always interesting and

inspirational.

I would also like to thank all the respondents who took part in my research. Without

them, this thesis would have never existed.

2

Abstract

This thesis deals with linking and the use of glottal stop in spoken English. It examines

different tendencies of Czech and native speakers in connected speech and compares

them.

In the theoretical part, the key elements that affect pronunciation of words in connected

speech are presented along with examples of each particular case. Each chapter also

contains notes for Czech speakers related to that issue.

The practical part consists of three main sections. In the first one, exercises used in the

research are presented and theoretically analyzed along with prediction of the expected

pronunciation applied by each group of speakers. In the second section, three groups of

speakers, who participated in the research, are described. This part also contains

commentary on the process of recording. The third section contains the results of the

analysis of authentic recordings acquired during the research with each exercise

supplied with its own summary. The data are presented via graphs and tables for better

illustration.

At the end, the findings are summarized, compared and the results are evaluated.

Anotace

Tato práce se zabývá vázáním a užíváním rázu v mluvené angličtině. Zkoumá odlišné

tendence českých a rodilých mluvčích při mluveném projevu a srovnává je.

V teoretické části jsou představeny nejdůležitější prvky, které ovlivňují výslovnost slov

v promluvě. Ke každému dílčímu prvku je vždy také uveden alespoň jeden příklad pro

ilustraci. V každé kapitole jsou také uvedeny poznámky pro české mluvčí, jež se

vztahují k danému tématu.

Praktická část se skládá ze tří hlavních částí. V první z nich jsou představena cvičení,

jichž bylo užito při výzkumu. Každé cvičení je teoreticky analyzováno a zároveň je

předpovězena očekávaná výslovnost mluvčích jednotlivých skupin. Ve druhé části jsou

popsány skupiny respondentů, kteří se na výzkumu podíleli. V této části je také popsán

proces získávání nahrávek. Poslední část obsahuje samotné výsledky výzkumu založené

na analýze autentických nahrávek respondentů, které byly získány při výzkumu. Každé

cvičení je také opatřeno vlastním shrnutím a komentářem. Data z výzkumu jsou

prezentována pomocí tabulek a grafů pro lepší přehled.

Všechny výsledky jsou v závěru shrnuty, vzájemně porovnány a subjektivně

ohodnoceny.

3

Introduction

Since the beginning of time, people have used every possible means of communication

available. Among many other options, language is by far the most effective and accurate

way of communicating (not unambiguous though). To put it bluntly, it has already been

demonstrated by dozens of linguists that the main function of a language is

communicative. And as we use the language literally from the day we are born until we

cross the Great Divide, it certainly has to be practical and efficient in terms of our effort.

Another evident attribute of any language – that is used by people for communication –

is its naturalness. Every language has its standard (English) or even a codification

(Czech, French) which governs the use of the language on the formal level. In reality,

though, formal conversations are rather rare compared to the amount of informal

interactions. Knowing this, when learning a foreign language, we cannot just remain

within the 'formal' boundaries and we are bound to investigate the informal field in

order to become a complex user of the language.

Along with the previously mentioned, people have a strong tendency to simplify

the language as much as possible which results in several adjustments made by the

native users of the particular language. Naturally, some of those changes are barely

noticeable, some can become a real obstacle to foreign learners unless they are familiar

with them. Foreign learners should expose themselves to these changes and absorb them

while, naturally, being aware of their presence.

This thesis deals with one of the phenomena which is very prominent in English

language, both in formal and informal conversations: linking. Without any doubt,

linking is an issue for Czech speakers, not only because its presence sometimes makes it

difficult to understand a carelessly speaking native speaker, but also because its absence

makes the whole utterance artificial. Linking simply cannot be omitted if one is to be a

proficient user of English.

Despite the fact that the main topic of this thesis is linking and glottal stop, a

theoretical background of all the key aspects of words in connected speech is presented

in the first part of this work, that includes assimilation, elision and linking with special

attention paid to linking consonants and glottal stop. References to relevant sources are

the essence of the theoretical part as well as the provided examples of each

phenomenon. The research consists of three different exercises which are expected to

provide frequent occurrence of linking (or rather suggest its occurrence) and is given to

4

a variety of speakers to avoid uniformity among speakers of the same region, social

status etc. The research is conducted on both native and foreign speakers of English.

The aim of this thesis is to underline the importance of linking and other related

phenomena in spoken English and to point out the fact that it is being neglected while

teaching English to Czech speakers. Most of the time, the presence of linking is the

source of ambiguity for Czech speakers when listening to a native speaker. However, it

is also important for production where it enables fluency and authenticity of the speech.

The research demonstrates the difference between the use of linking by native speakers

and Czech speakers. Lastly, it is only natural that Czech speakers struggle with linking

in general as it is not given the attention it requires when learning English.

5

C ONTENT

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 4

I. T HEORETICAL PART

1 WORDS IN CONNECTED SPEECH . . . . . 8

2 ASSIMILATION . . . . . . . . 10 2.1 Definition . . . . . . . . 10 2.2 Types of assimilation . . . . . . 10

2.2.1 Assimilation based on the origin . . . . 11 2.2.1.1 Historical . . . . . . . 11 2.2.1.2 Contextual . . . . . . . 11

2.2.2 Assimilation based on the result . . . . 12 2.2.2.1 Ordinary . . . . . . . 12 2.2.2.2 Coalescent . . . . . . . 12

2.2.3 Assimilation based on the direction . . . . 12 2.2.3.1 Progressive. . . . . . . 12 2.2.3.2 Regressive . . . . . . . 13

2.2.4 Assimilation based on the type . . . . . 13 2.2.4.1 Place of articulation . . . . . 13 2.2.4.2 Manner of articulation . . . . . 13 2.2.4.3 Voicing . . . . . . . 13 2.2.4.4 Other types. . . . . . . 14

2.3 Assimilation of the terminal consonant in Czech . . . 14 2.4 Note for Czech speakers . . . . . . 15

3 ELISION . . . . . . . . . 16 3.1 Definition . . . . . . . . 16 3.2 Word elision . . . . . . . . 16

3.2.1 Established . . . . . . . 16 3.2.2 Present Colloquial . . . . . . 17 3.2.3 Contextual . . . . . . . 18

3.3 Weak forms . . . . . . . . 19 3.4 Note for Czech Speakers . . . . . . 19

4 LINKING . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1 Definition . . . . . . . . 20 4.2 R-sandhi . . . . . . . . 20

4.2.1 Linking /r/ vs. intrusive /r/ . . . . . 21 4.2.2 Intrusive /r/ in English dictionaries . . . . 22

4.3 Linking /l/ . . . . . . . . 23 4.4 Linking semivowels /ʷ/ and /ʲ/ . . . . . 23

5 GLOTTAL STOP . . . . . . . . 27 5.1 Definition . . . . . . . . 27 5.2 Glottal stop in English . . . . . . 28 5.3 Glottal stop in Czech . . . . . . 29

5.3.1 Prothesis in Czech . . . . . . 30 5.3.2 Epenthesis in Czech . . . . . . 31

5.4 Glottal stop in a syllable . . . . . . 32 5.5 Distribution of /ʔ/ in Czech and English . . . . 33 5.6 Notes for Czech speakers . . . . . . 34

6

II. PRACTICAL PART

6 RESEARCH EXERCISES . . . . . . 35 6.1 Exercise 1 . . . . . . . . 35 6.2 Exercise 2 . . . . . . . . 36

6.2.1 Theoretical analysis of the sentences . . . . 36 6.3 Exercise 3 . . . . . . . . 41

6.3.1 Theoretical analysis of the text . . . . . 42

7 GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS . . . . . . 44 7.1 Group of Czech speakers of A2-B1 level . . . . 44 7.2 Group of Czech speakers of B2-C1 level . . . . 45 7.3 Reference group of native speakers . . . . . 45

8 THE PROCESS OF GATHERING DATA . . . . 47

9 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 49 9.1 Exercise 1 . . . . . . . . 49

9.1.1 A2-B1 results . . . . . . . 49 9.1.2 B2-C1 results . . . . . . . 50 9.1.3 Native speakers results . . . . . . 50 9.1.4 Summary . . . . . . . 50

9.2 Exercise 2 . . . . . . . . 52 9.2.1 A2-B1 results . . . . . . . 53 9.2.2 B2-C1 results . . . . . . . 54 9.2.3 Native speakers results . . . . . . 54 9.2.4 Summary . . . . . . . 55

9.3 Exercise 3 . . . . . . . . 56 9.3.1 A2-B1 results . . . . . . . 57 9.3.2 B2-C1 results . . . . . . . 57 9.3.3 Native speakers results . . . . . . 58 9.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . 58

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . 60

RESUMÉ . . . . . . . . . 61

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . 62

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . 64

7

I. THEORETICAL PART

1 WORDS IN CONNECTED SPEECH

In any language, words in connected speech are not pronounced separately, but are

linked together. And as Roach (2009) points out, human speech is not mechanical, so it

is not just a sequence of isolated sounds, but rather sounds that are 'glued' together and

often blend, disappear or get replaced by a more appropriate or fitting sound. There is

usually at least a minor difference between how a word is pronounced isolated, i.e. a

default dictionary pronunciation, and how the pronunciation changes in connected

speech. In Czech, there is a very little difference between isolated and contextual

pronunciation. In English on the other hand, the difference is often huge.

When studying connected speech, we have to be aware of the fact that we are

dealing with a very complex issue. In order to fully understand all the aspects of

connected speech, a combination of various phenomena has to be taken into account.

Single elements can be extracted and analyzed, but are also often influencing other

elements of a different nature, yet fairly equal relevance to connected speech. It is, for

instance, nearly impossible to explain the use of /ʔ/ by Czech speakers of English in

words starting with a vowel without also describing the assimilation that is usually

realized in the preceding word ending with a consonant, e.g. have all as [ˈhæf ˈʔɔːl]

instead of the standard [hævˈɔːl].

It is also important to say that every single speaker may pronounce every single

word differently from what is basically considered a standard pronunciation even in

connected speech. Various factors influence and affect the way how individual speakers

express themselves, e.g. current mood, communicative situation, purpose of the

communication, one's idiolect, education etc. Of course, all these possibilities are not

the main subject of analysis of connected speech, but doubtlessly play a certain role in

its final form.

Gilbert (2008: 6) mentiones that “Most English learners who suffer from

inadequate training in listening comprehension complain that “native speakers talk too

fast.” What this often means is that learners are unable to process important

grammatical signals, (e.g., past tense markers) or effectively process contracted

speech.” In fact, native speakers do not talk significantly faster, but they link, which

creates an illusion of the speech flowing 'too fast' and causes that the speech becomes

8

unintelligible for less experienced foreign users of English. For many foreign learners,

linking is something new, because it does not occur in their mother tongue. This

includes Czech speakers and the sooner they learn to link, the sooner they become able

to recognize it in connected speech of native speakers and understand them.

9

2 ASSIMILATION

2.1 Definition

Without a doubt, one of the most important phenomena in connected speech is the

process of assimilation. According to Roach (2009), assimilation is likely to occur in

rapid, casual speech and will not be used much in slow, careful speech. Many authors

define assimilation in their own words, yet in the same fashion as the phenomenon is

widely known and clear. Jones (1962: 218) gives a good definition:

Assimilation is defined as the process of replacing a sound by another sound under

the influence of a third sound which is near to it in the word or sentence. The term

may also be extended to include cases where a sequence of two sounds coalesces

and gives place to a single new sound different from either of the original sounds;

this type of change may be termed 'coalescent assimilation'.

Jones (1962) also notes that there is a difference between assimilation and what

he calls similitude. Similitude is a case where a certain subsidiary member of a phoneme

occurs next to another phoneme due to greater resemblance than the primary or

principal member. Cruttenden (2008: 297-299) calls this process allophonic variations

and gives an overview of the four main types in English. When talking about

assimilation, he uses the term phonemic variations. For instance, in the word plot the

principal voiced /l/ is replaced by an aspirated /ll / under the influence of the aspirated

voiceless /pʰ/. According to Jones (1962), such cases are not assimilation as there was

never any different pronunciation and plot has always been pronounced [ˈpʰll ɒt] with no

different allophone of /l/ used in this word. See Jones (1962: 219-220) for more detailed

information about similitude and its examples.

2.2 Types of assimilation

As was already said above, assimilation is a phonemic variation or alternation due to the

influence of a neighbouring sound. It is a greater change than allophonic variation as it

involves a substitution of one phoneme by another and not just an alteration of a single

phoneme. There are different perspectives from which assimilation can be classified and

10

various authors come up with their own distinction or classification. In the following

lines, I present a complex overview of assimilation and its various types.

2.2.1 Assimilation based on the origin

These kinds of assimilation are based on the origin and reason of their existence. The

important factor is whether the assimilation occurs word-internally or in context. When

it occurs word-internally, we can further take into account whether the process of

assimilation has been finished, e.g. lecture as [ˈlɛkʧə], or is still in progress (i.e.

speakers still use both the possible pronunciations), e.g. issue as [ˈɪʃu] or [ˈɪsju].

2.2.1.1 Historical

When the process has been finished, we talk about historical assimilation. It is a long

process during which a word that was pronounced in a certain way becomes pronounced

differently over time. Jones (1962) demonstrates historical assimilation on the word

picture which is today pronounced [ˈpɪkʧə], but was earlier pronounced [ˈpɪktjʊr]. The

consonantal sequence of /tj/ blended into a single consonant /ʧ/ due to the latter

requiring less aritculatory effort.

2.2.1.2 Contextual

The more relevant type of assimilation in connected speech is contextual. This type of

assimilation is conditioned by words occurring in a certain sequence. Isolated words

consist of certain phonemes which, when uttered, are realized by specific allophones.

However, when those words occur in a certain context, the allophonic structure may

change based on the surrounding sounds. For example, the word used is realized [ˈjuːzd]

when isolated, but when it enters the expression used to, the pronunciation is [ˈjuːs(t) tu]

or [ˈjuːs(t) tə] in further context. In this case, the final voiced /d/ is affected by the

following voiceless /t/ and becomes replaced by voiceless /t/. As that happens, the

voiced /z/ also gets affected by the succeeding voiceless /t/ and is replaced by

voiceless /s/.

11

2.2.2 Assimilation based on the result

The division based on the result observes what happens with the sounds that triggered

the assimilation. Either one of the sounds changes into another or both sounds blend

together.

2.2.2.1 Ordinary

Ordinary assimilation is when one of the two sounds causes the other to become

replaced by another sound. The following formula used by Jones (1962: 219) is good

for illustration: the sounds A is replaced by the sound B under the influence of the sound

C, e.g. hot dog as [ˈhɒd dɒg] where /t/ is replaced by /d/ under the influence of /d/.

2.2.2.2 Coalescent

Coalescent assimilation occurs when two sounds affect each other and blend into one

different sound. Jones (1962) again gives a good formula for such a case: the sounds A

and C influence each other and coalesce into the single sound B, e.g. mature as [mə

ˈʧʊə] where /t/ and /j/ influence each other and coalesce into /ʧ/. It should be noted that

some speakers still prefer to pronounce this word [məˈtjʊə]. In connected speech,

coalescent assimilation can be demonstrated on the sentence I hate you often realized

[ˈaɪ ˈheɪʧuː] where /t/ and /j/ under the influence of each other coalesce into /ʧ/ across

the word boundary.

2.2.3 Assimilation based on the direction

Vachek (1973) and many other authors distinguish between progressive and regressive

assimilation. In this division, it is simply analyzed which of the sounds is the dominant

one. The dominant sound then determines what happens with the other sound, either

affecting what precedes or succeeds.

2.2.3.1 Progressive

Progressive assimilation is the case where the first sound influences the succeeding

sound and triggers its substitution or alteration, e.g. win the cup as [ˈwɪn nə ˈkʰʌp]

where /ð/ is replaced by /n/ under the influence of preceding /n/.

12

2.2.3.2 Regressive

Regressive assimilation is the opposite case. The second sound influences the preceding

sound and triggers its substitution or alteration, e.g. sit down as [sɪd ˈdaʊn] where /t/ is

replaced by /d/ under the influence of the succeeding /d/.

2.2.4 Assimilation based on the type

This is a common division of assimilation. Roach (2009) uses these three types when

talking about assimilation. Here it is observed what type of change occurred during the

process of assimilation.

2.2.4.1 Place of articulation

The place of articulation changes as one of the sounds is substituted by another sound

that is pronounced closer to the preceding/succeeding sound in order to make it easier

for the speaker, e.g. that place as [ðæp ˈpʰll eɪs] where the alveolar /t/ gets replaced by

the bilabial /p/ under the influence of the succeeding bilabial /p/. Note that /t/ and /p/ are

both plosives in terms of the manner of articulation, therefore we speak of a different

place of articulation only.

2.2.4.2 Manner of articulation

When one of the sounds is replaced by another sound which is pronounced in a similar

way to the preceding/succeeding sound, we talk about a change in the manner of

articulation, e.g. that stinks as [ðæs ˈstɪŋks] where the plosive /t/ is replaced by the

sibilant fricative /s/ under the influence of the succeeding sibilant fricative /s/. Note

that /t/ and /s/ are both alveolar consonants in terms of the place of articulation,

therefore only a change in the manner of articulation.

2.2.4.3 Voicing

The third category is a change in voicing. Either a voiced consonant becomes voiceless

under the influence of a preceding/succeeding voiceless consonant or a voiceless

consonant becomes voiced under the influence of a preceding/succeeding voiced

consonant, e.g. have to as [ˈhæf tu] (or even [ˈhæf tə] in further context) where the

voiced /v/ is replaced by the voiceless /f/ under the influence of a succeeding

voiceless /t/. Note that /f/ and /v/ are both labiodental non-sibilant fricatives and neither

13

the place nor the manner of articulation changes in this case.

2.2.4.4 Other types

Jones (1962: 221, 227) also lists three additional types of assimilation which are,

however, either rare or non-existent in English and gives examples where possible:

assimilations by which a vowel is affected by another vowel, e.g. we are as [ˈwiə] where

/iː/ is replaced by /i/ under the influence of /ə/; assimilations by which a vowel is

modified by an adjacent consonant, e.g. go away as [ˈɡəʊ ʊˈweɪ] where /ə/ is replaced

by /ʊ/ under the influence of the succeeding /w/ and quite possibly even the

preceding /ʊ/; assimilations affecting the soft palate which is practically non-existent in

English.

2.3 Assimilation of the terminal consonant in Czech

In Czech language, there is a phenomenon traditionally referred to as asimilace znělosti,

i.e. assimilation of voicedness. To be more precise, it will be better to call this

phenomenon 'assimilation of voicedness of the terminal consonant', i.e. a consonant in

the word final position succeeded by silence. Silence is naturally treated as a voiceless

element and always causes regressive assimilation in Czech, e.g. hrad as [ˈhrat], dub as

[ˈdup] etc.

In English, a similar phenomenon can be observed, but its magnitude can hardly

be compared to Czech. As Roach (2009) says, when in the final position in a word,

voiced plosives /b/, /d/ and /g/ tend to have very little voicing, which occurs in the

compression phase. He also states that the plosion which follows the release is often

weak and not audible. Basically, the difference between lenis plosives and fortis

plosives is the fact that the former do not trigger what Roach (2009: 28) calls pre-fortis

clipping, i.e. vowels preceding a fortis consonant tend to be significantly shorter

compared to vowels followed by a lenis consonant; e.g. notice the difference in bet and

bed. It should be noted that pre-fortis clipping is triggered by any fortis consonant

regardless of their manner of articulation.

Based on simple analogy, Czech speakers have an unfortunate tendency to apply

the assimilation of voicedness of the terminal consonant in English as well, which is

caused by the lack of theoretical knowledge of English and its rules. It is important that

these different tendencies from their mother tongue be pointed out to Czech speakers, so

14

that they can consciously practise the correct pronunciation. After all, native speakers

will not distinguish much between /t/ and /d/ in the final position, but the quantity of the

preceding vowel will be the factor that determines their understanding and producing

lenis consonants as fortis will make it difficult for learners to adjust the quantity of the

preceding vowel to the proper degree.

2.4 Note for Czech speakers

Assimilation across word boundaries usually occurs in rapid, casual speech and is by no

means mandatory. In connected speech, one can avoid using assimilation completely

and still be understood perfectly. However, doing so may result in one sounding

unnatural and even meticulous. When learning English, assimilation needs to be

acknowledged and understood by a foreign listener as it greatly impacts their ability to

understand English in connected speech. It would be naive to expect native speakers to

not assimilate when they talk as it feels only natural to them.

The other problem is improper assimilation, i.e. assimilating in cases where it is

undesirable. Roach (2009: 112) uses the following example: I like that black dog [aɪ laɪk

ðæt blæk dɒɡ]. He says that it is typical of foreign learners to allow regressive

assimilation change all the final fortis consonants to lenis under the influence of the

succeeding lenis consonant; /k/ to /g/, /t/ to /d/ and /k/ to /g/ resulting into [aɪ laɪɡ ðæd

blæɡ dɒɡ]. According to him, such pronunciation is a strong indication of a foreign

accent.

Usually, when aware of assimilation in English pronunciation, learners

eventually acquire the notion of when to assimilate by imitating the pronunciation of

native speakers. Czech learners should aim to always analyze the 'unusual' or 'unknown'

elements in pronunciation of a native speaker as those are often clues to better

understanding of the spoken English. If the learner becomes aware of certain

pronunciational differences, they can start practising them and improve their

pronunciation.

15

3 ELISION

3.1 Definition

Elision is another phenomenon that often occurs in spoken English. Jones (1962: 230)

defines it as the disappearance of a sound, Cruttenden (2008: 249) calls it a loss of

vowels and consonants. Roach (2009: 113) uses the following definition:

The nature of elision may be stated quite simply: under certain circumstances

sounds disappear. One might express this in more technical language by saying that

in certain circumstances a phoneme may be realised as zero, or have zero

realisation or be deleted. As with assimilation, elision is typical of rapid, casual

speech.

According to Jones (1962), elision can be divided into two subtypes: historical

and contextual. However, none of those would be applicable to cases of word-internal

elision which are not established in the English standard, e.g. comfortable as

[ˈkʰʌmftəbəl] where /ə/ is elided by many, but not all speakers. It is therefore more

appropriate to distinguish word and contextual elision.

3.2 Word elision

Cases of word elision can be of two types as described by Cruttenden (2008),

established and present colloquial. The former may also be called historical as the

pronunciation with elision became standard. The term word elision is used to describe

the fact that the elision occurs within the word even when the word is isolated, either in

word-initial, word-internal or word-final position.

3.2.1 Established

The established word elision may be either vocalic or consonantal. Vocalic elisions of

this type are of no particular importance to connected speech and are rather bound to the

word itself, isolated or in context. For a thorough description of established vocalic

elision see Cruttenden (2008: 250). On the other hand, consonantal elisions are highly

relevant when it comes to connected speech, especially in the word-final position.

16

There is a major example in Received Pronunciation, the elision of /r/ in the

word-final position, e.g. car, boar, dear as [ˈkʰɑː], [ˈbɔː], [ˈdɪə], and also when

preceding another consonant, e.g. storm, farm, hurt, which is a standard pronunciation

in Modern English. Needless to say that this elision does not occur in many English

dialects, American English or Scottish English. Furthermore, the presence or absence of

this elision determines whether the dialect is referred to as rhotic or non-rhotic.

Another significant example of historical elision is the deletion of /l/ when

preceded by a long vowel, e.g. palm, walk as [ˈpʰɑːm], [ˈwɔːk]. In careless speech, /l/ is

sometimes elided even in the word-final position when preceded by /ɔː/, e.g. ball, all as

[ˈbɔː], [ˈɔː], which is not necessarily an established elision as it is typical of the new

generation of native speakers and even Cruttenden (2008: 251) mentions this case as an

example of present colloquial elision. However, the situation with the elision of /l/ is a

bit more complex because the word-final /l/, and especially its dark allophone /ɫ/, does

not need to be completely deleted but may be realized as the close-mid back rounded

vowel /o/ as in little, battle etc. For more information, see Wells's entry called Whatever

happened to Received Pronunciation?1 published in 1997 in the II Jornadas de Estudios

Ingleses.

These two major examples can be treated as analogous to a certain extent. Plus,

their existence is of considerable relevance to connected speech because both the /r/ and

possible /l/ elisions are conditioning the occurrence of the linking /r/ and possibly /l/ as

well. More about linking /l/ in 4.3.

3.2.2 Present colloquial

Similarly to established, present colloquial elision can be either vocalic or consonantal.

Vocalic usually concerns the omission of /ə/, which generally occurs in an unstressed

syllable. This elision usually happens when the reduced syllable succeeds the one

carrying the primary word stress, e.g. comfortable, wanderer, history as [ˈkʰʌmftəbəl],

[ˈwɒndrə], [ˈhɪstri]. Cruttenden (2008: 230) further describes the phonemic environment

that tends to trigger the present colloquial vocalic elision.

According to Roach (2009: 114) and Cruttenden (2008: 251), the consonantal

elision is mostly represented by the simplification or avoidance of consonant clusters.

Cruttenden (2008) talks about the elision of /t/ and /d/ in clusters of three consonants,

Roach (2009) further specifies the nature of the consonant cluster as either three

1 This document is accessible online at http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/rphappened.htm.

17

plosives or two plosives and a fricative, e.g. crypts as [ˈkʰrɪps].

Cruttenden (2008) also states that a whole syllable can be omitted when

speaking rapidly or carelessly, especially when the /r/ sound is near or ought to be used

in a sequence, e.g. library, literally, government as [ˈlaɪbri], [ˈlɪʧli], [ˈɡʌvmənt].

3.2.3 Contextual

The contextual elision is the most relevant to connected speech. It occurs when the

words are juxtaposed in an utterance, i.e. a certain sequence of words creates an

environment that triggers the occurrence of elision which is normally not present when

the words are pronounced isolated. The contextual elision may as well be called an

elision across word boundaries.

Again, the elided sound may be either a vowel or a consonant. It often happens

that vowels are elided as a result of smoothing. Smoothing is a process where falling,

closing diphthongs /eɪ/, /aɪ/, /ɔɪ/, /əʊ/ and /aʊ/ are followed by /ə/, which in rapid speech

often causes the elision of the second element of the diphthong and the first element

becomes lengthened. When that happens, words like fire and slayer are pronounced

[ˈfa:ə] and [ˈsle:ə], or the second element disappears with the first element not

lengthened at all, thus [ˈfaə] and [ˈsleə]. Such cases often occur even across the word

boundaries, e.g. I enjoy it as [a ənˈjɔ ɪt] or die alone as [da əˈləʊn]. Cruttenden (2008)

further speaks about eliding /ə/ in the word-initial position when followed by a stressed

syllable, e.g. go again as [ɡəʊ ˈɡɛn]; or when it precedes the linking /r/, e.g. brother and

sister as [ˌbrʌðrən ˈsɪstə].

The consonantal elision is very frequent and often occurs in two-word

expressions with the first word having a plosive consonant in the word-final position

and the second word starting with a consonant (often plosive as well, but not

necessarily), e.g. blind man as [ˌblaɪn ˈmæn], take care as [ˌtʰeɪ ˈkʰeə], hard times as

[ˌhɑː ˈtʰaɪmz], last night as [ˌlɑːs ˈnaɪt] etc.

Another important consonantal elision occurs in the preterite forms with the -ed

suffix, thus ending with /d/ or /t/. If the final plosive is a part of an affricate + plosive or

a plosive + plosive cluster, it is lost when followed by a word-initial consonant, e.g.

tracked down as [ˌtʰræk ˈdaʊn], begged for mercy as [ˌbɛɡ fə ˈmɜ:si]. As can be seen,

the omission of plosives in such a case removes the explicit representation of the past

tense, which can, however, still be safely deduced from the context.

18

3.3 Weak forms

Weak forms and eventually their contracted forms are a peculiar case. While Cruttenden

(2008) treats them as a typical case of consonantal elision, Roach (2009) is hesitant in

doing so saying that this elision is atypical because of its usually contracted graphical

representation, something which can not be seen in other types of elision, e.g. don't,

we'd, she'll, I've, he's instead of do not, we would/had, she will, I have, he is. The

graphical representation suggests that these contracted forms are very well established

in the language and often used by speakers, especially in colloquial speech. It is only

natural that grammatical words, which carry very little semantic value, are reduced to

the minimal pronunciational effort.

3.4 Note for Czech speakers

Using elision is by no means mandatory for Czech learners. Once again though, it is

important to know of its existence and be prepared for its occurrence in spoken English.

Elision is used frequently by native speakers and the tendency to omit as many sounds

as possible while still maintaining intelligibility is the aim. Not understanding the

process of elision may render the speech unintelligible. It is possible to learn the rules of

certain sound environement triggering elision, but its occurrence and magnitude is often

based on the speaker's preference and various speakers might elide differently in every

single word or expression.

19

4 LINKING

4.1 Definition

Linking may be described as a process of connecting adjacent words which occur in an

utterance. As has already been mentioned, when entering connected speech in English,

the pronunciation of each word is subject to change under the influence of neighbouring

sounds. Linking in particular is a device that is used to connect two words which, based

on their isolated forms, create a hiatus. During this process, a linking consonant is

inserted in between the two vowels in order to eliminate the hiatus and make the

pronunciation of those words require less articulatory effort.

4.2 R-sandhi

R-sandhi (alternatively r-liaison) is arguably the most prominent means of linking and

has already been given a lot of linguistic attention. Note that this phenomenon only

occurs in non-rhotic dialects of English such as RP, Estuary, Norfolk, Yorkshire etc.

Therefore, it is almost irrelevant in rhotic dialects1 (a wide range of American dialects,

Scottish dialects, Irish dialects, several British dialects etc.). This process, in which /r/

occurs in and intervocalic position, comprises two systematically similar

(synchronically), yet historically and orthographically (diachronically) different

phenomena: linking /r/ and intrusive /r/ (Jones 1962: 196-197; Roach 2009: 115;

Hannisdal 2006: 158; Cruttenden 2008: 305). However, the occurrence of r-sandhi is

conditioned by the nature of hiatus, particularly the initial vowel. Mompeán-Gonzalez

and Mompeán-Guillamón (2009: 734) give an overview of the required initial vowels:

Both phenomena have the same distribution patterns, i.e., word-internally or across

word boundaries, and only after certain non-high back monophthongs such as /ɑː/

or /ɔː/, central monophthongs such as /ə, ɜː/ or centring diphthongs such as /ɪə, eə,

ʊə/ (Collins and Mees 2003: 105; Lewis 1975: 37; Wells 1982: 226; Wells and

Colson 1971: 94).

1 In rhotic dialects, phoneme /r/ is pronounced in the syllable-final position which means that there is nohiatus and thus no linking device needs to be applied. However, there are still occasions where intrusive /r/ might be inserted, e.g. Hannah and James, pariah in the town.

20

It should also be mentioned that monophthongs and diphthongs listed above only

provide the necessary environment for r-sandhi to occur and it is always the speaker's

decision that plays the main role. For example, here is what Wells says in his phonetic

blog about his own intrusive /r/ usage:

I use intrusive r freely after ə, ɑː and the centring diphthongs, even word-internally,

but never after ɔː. So I would readily put an r in china and glass, Grandma again

and even in semi-nonce forms such as concertinaing, magentaish; but not in thaw

out, sawing, withdrawal.

He further describes that his preference probably stems from a historically

different pronunciation of words containing either /ɔː/ as in draw or /ɔə/ as in boar.

Today, the difference is unlikely between these two types, especially among the younger

generation.

4.2.1 Linking /r/ vs. intrusive /r/

As mentioned earlier, there are two slightly different phenomena of which the r-sandhi

comprises. The use of linking /r/ among RP speakers is very frequent and unlike the use

of intrusive /r/ is considered formally correct. In the seventh edition of Gimson's

Pronunciation of English Cruttenden (2008: 305) uses the following formulation:

“The vowel endings to which an /r/ link maybe added are /ɑː,ɔː/ and those single or

complex vowels containing final [ə] (/ə,ɜː,ɪə,eə,ʊə/), e.g. in far off, four aces,

answer it, fur inside, near it, wear out, secure everything. Prescriptivists seek to

limit the allowability of linking /r/ to those cases where there is an /r/ in the

spelling; nevertheless many examples of linking /r/ occur where there is no /r/ in

the spelling, such /r/'s being labelled as 'intrusive'.”

The use of intrusive /r/ is by many considered non-standard or inappropriate (Jones

1962: 197; Pačesová 1990: 121; Urbanová 1998: 65; Gick 1999: 19; Cruttenden 2008:

305). It is debatable if intrusive /r/ should be taught to foreign learners of English but

Jones (1962: 198) quite rightly states: “It is not necessary for foreign people to learn to

use intrusive r. They should, however, know of its existence; otherwise they may

sometimes fail to understand what is said to them by English people who insert it.“

21

If the tendency to use intrusive /r/ is looked at from the phonological point of

view, it only appears natural to use intrusive /r/ based on analogy. For example words

law and lore (both transcribed [ˈlɔː]) are homophones among RP speakers, and thus,

both words provide the necessary criteria in order to trigger the possible occurrence of

linking/intrusive /r/. So, even though aware of the different spelling, RP speakers would

subconsciously tend to use linking/intrusive /r/ while producing both words. Gick

(1999: 32) provides a table of homophonic expressions, showing that both linking and

intrusive /r/ occur in the same sound environment and thus may be perceived as

members of analogical paradigm. Some speakers, however, would consciously avoid

pronouncing intrusive /r/ as stated by Cruttenden in Gimson's Pronunciation of English

(2008: 305):

“The focusing of attention on 'intrusive' /r/'s as an undesirable speech habit has led

to the use by some speakers of a pause or glottal stop in such cases of vowel hiatus,

with the result that, in avoiding 'intrusive' /r/'s, they have also abandoned other

linking /r/s in favour of a glottal stop or a glide between the abutting vowels.”

4.2.2 Intrusive /r/ in English dictionaries

Wells (2010) dedicated three of his blog entries to discussing the treatment of

intrusive /r/ in major English pronunciation dictionaries. It is certainly interesting to

observe the difference between all three approaches. In the Cambridge English

Pronouncing Dictionary (2006), the intrusive /r/ is marked as a controversial question.

Despite the fact that the intrusive /r/ is called a widespread phenomenon, EPD

discourages foreign learners from paying attention to it and does not include it in its

entries. The Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English (2001) also states

that intrusive /r/ is frequently used. ODP also admits that intrusive /r/ has been long

refused and avoided by teachers, but cannot be ignored and is therefore included in the

dictionary. To mark the difference between linking and intrusive /r/ in its entries,

intrusive /r/ is italicized. Lastly, Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (2008) refers to

both linking and intrusive /r/ as optional sounds of varying importance to foreign

learners. Linking /r/, regarded as highly important, is put in italics when optional and is

recommended to be used. Intrusive /r/, treated as less important, is shown in raised

letters (ʳ) and is recommended to be ignored.

22

4.3 Linking /l/

Gick (1999) mentions intrusive /l/ in his A gesture-based account of intrusive

consonants in English, however, this phenomenon is typical of American English and is

therefore irrelevant to British English. Nevertheless, cases of linking /l/ may be

observed in British English. The final /l/ is very often elided when preceded by /ɔː/ in

words such as all, small, ball, wall, but when those words enter an utterance and are

followed by a word starting with a vowel, the /l/ is vocalised again as a linking element,

e.g. all of them as [ˈɔːl əv ðəm] or call again as [ˈkʰɔːl əˈɡɛn]. The elision of /l/ is not

mandatory and may not happen, in which case speaking of linking /l/ becomes pointless.

Yet, many speakers often elide /l/ in these words, either isolated or in connected speech,

so it is possible to speak of linking /l/ when they insert it in order to terminate the hiatus.

Note that this phenomenon may be perceived as analogical to linking /r/, as linking /r/ is

also a product of the initial elision, which became standard.

4.4 Linking semivowels /ʷ/ and /ʲ/

Glide, as mentioned by Gimson, is another interesting phenomenon in the context of

linking. There are authors suggesting or implying the existence of linking consonants

other than /r/ which are supposed to provide an alternative realization where glide is

typically expected to occur in connected speech. Volín and Drenková suggest the

existence of 'transitional'1 /w/ and /j/ in their pedagogical article Anglický a český ráz

před samohláskami. They believe that these 'transitional' consonants ought to help

Czech students overcome both production and reception problems regarding linking in

English saying: “We believe in certain connection between production and perceptive

skills.” (Volín, Drenková 2003: 13) We are presented with several exercises which are

meant to provide material for Czech teachers of English and their lessons. While I do

agree with the statement above, I disapprove of another statement from their article:

“There is no need to worry about doing any harm to students by including intentionally

incorrect pronunciation.” Most of them use it anyway and we just give them opportunity

to realize that.' Incorrect pronunciation, in my opinion, should be pointed out and

corrected but never trained for any purpose.

1 The term 'transitional' is my own translation of the term 'přechodové' used by Volín and Drenková.

23

As for the 'transitional' consonants, even the authors are hesitant about their

usage and present them in brackets and in significantly smaller fonts. From this I gather

that Volín and Drenková bear in mind the uncertainty of their occurrence and varying

degree of prominence. The question is, now, how do we teach random prominence of

'transitional' consonants to learners who are barely aware of the process of linking in the

first place? Why not just teach them to glide between the adjacent consonants rather

then artificially insert a 'transitional' consonant? In my opinion, the use of these

'transitional' consonants while learning linking in English language may prove helpful at

certain level (as is the intention of Volín and Drenková), however, using these

consonants prominently in syllables which are not stressed appears unnatural and low

prominence makes us ask why anyone would use such a complicated device (artificially

inserted consonant) only as a temporary tool. I believe using 'transitional' /w/ or /j/ is not

the desired aim on a quest to achieve the ideal pronunciation of English, not to mention

that inserting /j/ or /w/ inside a diphthong glide requires greater articulatory effort,

which is generally undesirable in connected speech.

However, the existence of linking /w/ and /j/ cannot be completely disregarded.

While we can find no mention of linking /w/ or /j/ in Roach's English Phonetics and

Phonology, the following paragraph can be found in Gimson's Pronunciation of English

(2008: 306):

Linking [ʲ,ʷ]. In vocalic junctures where the first word ends in /iː/, /ɪ/, /eɪ/, /aɪ/,

or /ɔɪ/, a slight linking [ʲ] may be heard between the two vowels, e.g. my arms [maɪ

ˈʲɑːmz], may ask [meɪ ˈʲɑːsk], he ought [hiː ˈʲɔːt], annoy Arthur [ənɔɪ ˈʲɑːθə], beauty

and [bjuːtiː ˈʲənd]. But this is not sufficient to be equated with phonemic /j/; indeed

there are minimal pairs which illustrate the difference between linking[ʲ] and

phonemic /j/, my ears [maɪ 'ʲɪəz] vs my years [maɪ 'jɪəz], and I earn [aɪ ˈʲɜːn] vs I

yearn [aɪ ˈjɜːn]. Similarly a linking [ʷ] may be heard between a final /uː/, /əʊ/

and /aʊ/ and a following vowel, e.g. window open [wɪndəʊ ˈʷəʊpən], now and then

[naʊ ʷənd ˈðen], you aren't [juː ˈʷɑːnt]; and minimal pairs illustrating linking [ʷ]

and phonemic /w/ can be found, e.g. two-eyed [tuː ˈʷaɪd] vs too wide [tuː ˈwaɪd].

Alternative pronunciations, more frequent in faster speech, in the case of the

sequences of diphthong plus following vowel, involve the absorption of the second

element of the diphthong, i.e. of the /ɪ/ in the case of /eɪ, aɪ, ɔɪ/ and of the /ʊ/ in the

case of /əʊ, aʊ/, giving renderings like annoy Arthur [ənɔ ˈɑːðə], my ears [ma ˈɪəz],

24

window open [ˈwɪndə əʊpən] (see further under §8.11 (8) above).

In his phonetic blog, Wells (2010) labels the 'linking' [ʲ,ʷ] as linking semivowels which

is, by all means, appropriate. He also mentions the following: “Cruttenden is being

rather naughty here in his phonetic notation. The IPA symbols [ʲ, ʷ] are properly no

more than diacritics, indicating palatalization and labialization respectively. He, though,

is obviously using them to denote very short, transitional, non-phonemic glides.” Wells

brings to our attention the fact that even if those semivowels existed in English, IPA has

yet to find symbols which would represent them without ambiguity.

Wells (2010) does not completely disapprove of the existence of linking

semivowels and further comments on the tendency of native speakers of RP-type

accents to add an extra segment in the VV structure, i.e. two neighbouring vowels, as in

the case of linking r:

The analogy for my would be that in isolation it is CV, m plus aɪ, but in prevocalic

position (my arms) it becomes CVC, m plus aɪ plus j. Since English j by definition

is a non-syllabic palatal glide, and since aɪ already contains a non-syllabic palatal

glide, it is difficult to see what the realization of j might actually consist of in the

supposed homosyllabic sequence maɪj.

As for the didactic aspect of semivowels, I am very hesitant about the existence of any

'transitional' or 'linking' semivowels. As much as the implementation of these

semivowels in teaching EFL students may be discussed, their actual existence1 (at least)

in RP is questionable. On the topic of their didactic value, Wells (2010) says: 'I am

confirmed in my view that “linking /j/ and /w/” are figments of the imagination. That

does not necessarily imply that they are pedagogically valueless. I am willing to

recognize that sometimes teaching something that is not strictly true may nevertheless

be justified if it leads to better results than not teaching it.' If using linking semivowels

is the necessary step for some students to avoid using glottal stop where it possibly

could puzzle the listener, it only seems reasonable to teach them. However, I strongly

1 Regarding the existence of linking semivowels among native speakers, Wells (2010) reacts to Cruttenden's formulation: 'I suppose he is right in saying that these not-quite-segments may sometimesbe “heard”, since experience shows that some naïve transcribers are convinced that they exist. (...) the supposed “[ʲ]” in my arms merely represents the point of maximum upward excursus of the tonguebody as it moves from [a] through [ɪ] towards [ɑ]. How could one possibly detect the presence vs. absence of this entity on a spectrogram?

25

believe that students should rather be taught to link the intersyllabic VV structure by

gliding and only if they consistently fail to do so, then teaching linking semivowels

might be considered.

26

5 GLOTTAL STOP

5.1 Definition

Over time, various names were given to the phenomenon commonly referred to as the

glottal stop. Jones (1962) also mentions the obsolete term glottal catch while he argues

that the term glottal plosive consonant, also used by Roach (2009), is more accurate

than glottal stop. Skaličková (1982) also lists the term sudden on-set. Here is the

definition given by Jones (1962: 156):

In forming the sound ʔ the glottis is closed completely by bringing the vocal cords

into contact, the air is compressed by pressure from the lungs, and then glottis is

opened (by separating the vocal cords) so that the air escapes suddenly. It is neither

breathed nor voiced.

In one of the more present publications, Cruttenden (2008: 178-179) gives a complex

up-to-date definition in Gimson's Pronunciation of English:

In the case of the glottal plosive (stop), the obstruction to the airstream is formed

by the closure of the vocal folds, thereby interrupting the passage of air into the

supraglottal organs. The air pressure below the glottis is released by the sudden

separation of the vocal folds. The compression stage of its articulation consists of

silence, its presence being perceived auditorily by the sudden cessation of the

preceding sound or by the sudden onset (often with an accompanying strong breath

effort) of the following sound.

As the term glottal stop says itself, the place of articulation is glottis and the manner of

articulation is stop (or alternatively plosive). In the International Phonetic Alphabet, the

glottal stop is represented by the symbol <ʔ>, which is similar to the question mark

symbol <?> that is occasionally used instead by mistake or simply because the symbol

<ʔ> cannot be found or used properly. Cruttenden (2008) further adds that /ʔ/ is a

voiceless plosive even though there exists a view that treats /ʔ/ as neither voiceless nor

voiced because of the vocal cords position. See Cruttenden (2008: 179) for more

detailed information on this matter.

27

The glottal stop is best illustrated on interjection of coughing [ʔʌhəʔʌh] or

alarm/dismay [ʔʌʔəʊ].

5.2 Glottal stop in English

Roach (2009) states that even though the glottal stop occurs in English quite frequently,

it is not necessarily important to learners of English because it usually serves as an

alternative pronunciation of other plosive consonants /p, t, k/. Therefore, one does not

need to actively use it in their pronunciation, but should be at least aware of its

existence, especially since the alternative pronunciation tends to occur more often in

colloquial speech while it still cannot be completely disregarded even in formal English.

Nevertheless, it is certainly interesting to observe the status of /ʔ/ in English

phonological system:

1) /ʔ/ is not an English phoneme.

2) In certain contexts, /ʔ/ is treated as allophone of /p, t, k/ with /t/ being arguably the

most prominent, e.g. better, cut it out.

3) /ʔ/ is a marker of emphasis in the initial position in words beginning with a vowel

sound such as actually or awful.

4) /ʔ/ is often in the initial position of a word beginning with a vowel sound when the

speaker hesitates.

5) /ʔ/ occurs in pronunciation of isolated words beginning with a vowel sound such as

every, oil, iron, apple realized as [ˈʔev(ə)ri], [ˈʔɔɪl], [ˈʔaɪən], [ˈʔæpəl]. However, when

these words enter an utterance, /ʔ/ no longer occupies the initial position unless used to

emphasize or a result of hesitation.

Urbanová (1998: 47) looks at four functions of glottal stop in connected speech

while arguably inspired by Skaličková (1982: 135):

1) /ʔ/ may be used as a 'syllable boundary marker' as in co-operate, geometry, reaction,

Skaličková also lists the word reorganize. Urbanová says that a hiatus can be separated

into two sounds in careful speech. While co-operate, reaction or reorganize could

possibly be pronounced with the /ʔ/ sound separating the hiatus as the initial syllable is

a prefix (co-, re-), I strongly disagree with the implication that the word geometry would

28

be realized as [dʒɪˈʔɒmətri], at least not with the idea of a correct and suitable

pronunciation because geometry consists of two combining forms geo- and -metry,

neither of which can stand alone, and therefore do not give the speaker any reason to

realize the /ʔ/ sound in the hiatus.

2) /ʔ/ may be used as a replacement of linking/intrusive r, e.g. later on, far off, law and

order, drama and music. This truly is a possible function as some native speakers still

feel uncomfortable using linking r, not to mention intrusive r, which is still by many

considered incorrect and improper.

3) So-called 'glottal reinforcement' of an initial stressed vowel, which is simply

emphasizing the word.

4) Glottal reinforcement of a final fortis plosive with the possibility of replacing the

plosive in certain cases, e.g. went, help, luck realized as [ˈwenʔ(t)], [ˈhelʔ(p)], [ˈlʌʔ(k)].

Today, we are likely to encounter the situation where /ʔ/ functions as an allophone of /p,

t, k/ rather than being a reinforcement, especially in colloquial speech. Urbanová (1998)

says that replacing /p, t, k/ with /ʔ/ in this case is typical of Cockney, but I believe that

this phenomenon is now commonly used in a wide range of British dialects and even

occurs in formal speech when not consciously suppressed by the speaker. Common

observation reveals that the word Britain is realized as [ˈbrɪʔən] by many native

speakers even in formal speech.

5.3 Glottal stop in Czech

Similarly to English, glottal stop is not treated as a phoneme in Czech language.

The existence of /ʔ/ in Czech is acknowledged, but given the fact that its usage is mostly

facultative, Czech linguists tend to describe its theoretical nature while they usually

choose not to further talk about its occurrence. Palková (1994) for instance talks about

glottal stop in her description of types of voicing. She says that glottal stop is merely a

voicing instrument and while she lists /ʔ/ in her table of Czech consonants, she does not

include it in her description of individual plosive consonants even though she admits

that it can be sometimes perceived as an individual segment of a consonantal quality.

Klimeš (1978) talks about glottal stop in a section called 'alteration of phones in

connected speech'. He uses the following terms: ráz, hlasový předraz, tvrdý začátek

hlasový or pevné nasazení. Skaličková (1982) also mentions the term hlasivková

plozíva, Pačesová (1990) uses the term hlasivková okluzíva, Krčmová (2006) uses the

29

term glotální okluze.

Volín (2012) expresses his opinion about the term ráz, calling it a bit

unfortunate, but still agrees to use it as a general term. He also mentions the term

laryngální okluzíva while he admits that such a term is not particularly accurate in what

he calls the 'Czech situation'. He says that many Czech speakers sometimes avoid using

/ʔ/ completely by simply lowering the frequency of the vocal folds vibration and

therefore producing a sound very similar to /ʔ/. However, he believes that the most

common technique is lowering the frequency to such a degree where the vocal folds

begin to vibrate irregularly (třepená fonace). He further says that all of the possible

cases take place in glottis which enables us to use the internationally recognized term

glottalization (glotalizace).

It can be said that the glottal stop in Czech is primarily a marking signal of word

boundaries in case of words where a vowel is in the initial position. /ʔ/ is also

occasionally produced word-internally when the stem begins with a vowel, especially in

a careful or emphatic speech. When a Czech speaker decides to avoid using /ʔ/ in their

speech without substituting it with a prothetic consonant, they may often experience

other people having problems understanding them. It is therefore believed that the

absence of /ʔ/, which usually occurs in a careless or colloquial speech, tends to lower

the speech intelligibility to a varying degree. Nevertheless, a research would be required

to prove this hypothesis.

5.3.1 Prothesis in Czech

The possibility of omitting /ʔ/ in a careless or colloquial speech has already been

mentioned earlier. There is, however, another element used in a careless or colloquial

speech that replaces /ʔ/, which is reportedly less demanding in terms of production. That

element is called a prothetic consonant. Prothesis of this type is a process of adding a

consonant to the word-initial position in order to prevent the word from starting with a

vowel.

The non-standard Czech is known to contain three prothetic consonants: /v, h, j/.

Prothetic /v/ is the most common variant used mainly in the Czech part of the Czech

Republic and can also occur in west or south Moravia. According to Krčmová (2006),

prothetic /v/ occurs in words beginning with the vowel /o/, e.g. orel, opilý, on as [vorel],

[vopiliː], [von]. There are, however, words that begin with /o/ but never allow

prothetic /v/ to be applied, e.g. otec, olovo. Even Volín (2012) mentiones a frequent use

30

of prothetic /v/ among his students in casual conversation. Prothetic /h/ only occurs in a

traditional Moravian dialects, but does not necessarily precede only the vowel /o/, e.g.

Olomouc, ulica, almara as [ˈholomoːts], [ˈhulitsa], [ˈhalmara]. Prothetic /j/ can only be

found in obsolete vocabulary and is very rare, e.g. almara as [jarmara]. Interestingly

enough, there is an opposite tendency to prothetic /j/ and that is its elision in words

where initial /j/ is succeeded by the vowel /e/, therefore inserting /ʔ/ in its place, e.g.

ještě, jestli as [ˈʔeʃťe], [ˈʔes(t)li].

5.3.2 Epenthesis in Czech

Similarly to prothesis, epenthesis is a phenomenon used in non-standard Czech. It is a

process of adding a sound to the interior of a word. There are two types of epenthesis,

vocalic and consonantal. Interestingly, while consonantal prothesis is usually perceived

and evaluated as a careless and vulgar element, consonantal epenthesis is rather viewed

as a product of ignorance.

The vocalic epenthesis, though, is quite common in Czech. According to Palková

(1994), it often occurs in a plural genitive of feminine nouns and is not only orthoepic,

but also mandatory, e.g. taška-tašek, kostka-kostek etc. An interesting example of a

vocalic epenthesis in Czech is the word osum where the vocal /u/, which got repeatedly

inserted into the pronunciation of the word osm, became standard and even affected the

spelling of the word, therefore both osm as [ˈʔosm] and osum as [ˈʔosum] are acceptable

in the Czech standard only with the latter perceived by some speakers as colloquial and

inappropriate in formal speech.

The consonantal epenthesis is mostly regarded as being a matter of ignorance

and careless speech. It is informal, non-standard and usually not acceptable for many

speakers, e.g. bizarní as [ˈbizardɲiː] or zrdcadlo as [ˈzrdʦadlo] with the additional /d/. It

is safe to assume that speakers who use such pronunciation are most likely unaware of

their error as it requires more effort than the correct pronunciation. The situation is a bit

different with the word situace. Some speakers pronounce the word [ˈsitulace] with the

additional /l/, but in this case /l/ is inserted between two vowels /u/ and /a/ and

terminates the hiatus. The combination /ua/ is not natural for Czech speakers and while

it does not occur in a single syllable, it is still a word-internal element and inserting /ʔ/

is out of the question here. In this case, /l/ may be treated as something similar to the

English intrusive /r/, which also occurs word-internally, e.g. drawing as [ˈdrɔːrɪŋ].

Nevertheless, this 'intrusive /l/' in Czech is still perceived as unacceptable and is not as

31

common as intrusive /r/ in English.

5.4 Glottal stop in a syllable

It should also be noted that the /ʔ/ sound is treated as a consonantal element. This may

first feel redundant, but the opposite is true. Looking at the syllabic structure, it is

divided into three parts1: onset, nucleus and coda (the Czech equivalents are praetura,

jádro or nukleus and koda). There is a tendency to treat onset as something optional

with nucleus being the most important part of the syllable capable of existing on its own

– the minimal syllabic structure would be V (vowel) and any additional component may

or may not be present, e.g. CV, CVC, VC. However, if we thoroughly analyze the

isolated vowel sound, we have to acknowledge the fact that there is /ʔ/ sound preceding

the vowel, therefore /ɒ/, /ʌ/, /ɪ/ are realized as [ʔɒ], [ʔʌ], [ʔɪ] which points us to the fact

that there cannot be a simple syllabic structure V, but rather a minimal CV structure in

isolation. Looking at connected speech in English, words with vowels in the initial

position are usually linked to the preceding word in order to gain the consonantal

element for the syllabic onset and avoid the use of /ʔ/. Exceptions are instances of a

hiatus where the speaker chooses to glide between the adjacent vowels rather than

inserting /ʔ/ or a linking consonant, e.g. too obvious as [tu ˈɒbvɪəs].

It is known that spoken English does not respect the graphical boundaries of

words. When segmenting an utterance in English phonology, it is best to divide it into

tone-units. These tone-units usually do not correspond with the graphical structure of

the utterance making 'what we see written' redundant. Roach (2009: 129) gives a further

explanation of the tone-unit and its position within intonation.

The difference between Czech and English is easily illustrated on a common

children exercise. When Czech children learn about words and how they consist of

syllables, they are usually using the method clapping – as they speak slowly and

carefully, they clap for every single syllable. This exercise can be done for each word

separately or for the whole sentence, but the structure of every 'clapped' syllable should

not change regardless of whether we 'clap' the words separately or utter them in

connected speech.

1 Cruttenden (2008: 49) divides a syllable into onset and rhyme with the latter being comprised of peak and coda.

32

Czech otec orá English puddle of mud

separately [ˈʔo ˈtec ˈʔo ˈraː] [ˈpʌ ˈd(ə)l ˈʔɒv ˈmʌd]

connected speech [ˈʔo tec ˈʔo raː] [ˈpʌ də ləv ˈmʌd]

In this Czech example, syllables do not change and the word orá maintains /ʔ/ in

the initial position as a marker of a word boundary. There is no tendency to link the

word orá to the preceding syllable with a consonant in its final position. In the English

example, it can be observed that the weak form of the word of has a tendency to find

itself an onset to which it attaches itself in connected speech. It borrows the adjacent

consonant /l/ from the preceding syllable and creates a new syllable [ləv] for the

realization, which is not graphically transparent in puddle of mud. This process fulfills

the syllabic CV pattern and no longer requires the use of /ʔ/. There are of course

different conditions in these two cases because Czech words always carry the initial

stress and therefore the initial syllable cannot1 be unstressed.

Nevertheless, it is safe to assume that Czech speakers will almost always use /ʔ/

in a word with a vowel in the initial position and this tendency is bound to occur even

when they speak English.

5.5 Distribution of /ʔ/ in Czech and English

Pačesová (1990) talks about the distribution of /ʔ/ sound in Czech and English. She says

that /ʔ/ is not very common in English when compared to Czech. Her claim is definitely

true from the perspective of the word (syllable) initial position. However, as was already

mentioned above, /ʔ/ very often substitutes /t/ in the syllable final position or even in the

initial position as long as the syllable does not carry the word stress, e.g. better [ˈbɛʔə],

later [ˈleɪʔə]. While it can be said that RP speakers would not use the /ʔ/ sound very

often, it would be used by many native speakers in many southern dialects of British

English. Such a use of /ʔ/ is definitely not to be expected among Czech speakers.

Considering that the glottal stop is used for different purposes in both languages,

it would be extremely difficult to come to any relevant conclusion by comparing its

usage in these two languages. What can be said is the fact that the glottal stop is used as

an allophone in certain cases in English, which is something that does not occur in

1 Exceptions are expressions with a preposition where the preposition carries the word stress and leaves the initial syllable of the succeeding word unstressed, e.g. na zámku as [ˈna za:mku].

33

Czech. Furthermore, the glottal stop may occur in the syllable initial position followed

by a vowel, but in such a case it loses its status as an allophone and simply serves as a

marker of emphasis. In Czech, such a use of the glottal stop is very frequent, but the

purpose is simply an indication of a word boundary, not emphasis. However, if we look

at the standard formal speech of both languages, we can clearly see a big difference:

1) In formal English, the tendency to use the /ʔ/ sound will be minimal and only in cases

when the speaker wants to emphasize something.

2) In formal Czech, the tendency to use the /ʔ/ sound will be high in order to maximize

the intelligibility of speech.

5.6 Notes for Czech speakers

Most speakers of Czech are able to use /ʔ/ without any problem while not aware

of its existence without theoretical knowledge of phonetics and phonology. Therefore,

the use of /ʔ/ does not need to be consciously practised in their mother tongue.

However, when learning English, they should become familiar with the term glottal stop

and what it stands for. It is important for them to understand the different usage in

Czech and English in order to avoid inappropriate habitual application of /ʔ/ where it

does not belong in English. According to Jones (1962), it is important for foreign

speakers to avoid making mistakes by improper use of /ʔ/ as it effectively spoils the

quality of their pronunciation. Volín and Drenková (2003) highlight the fact that Czech

speakers should avoid using /ʔ/ in words beginning with a vowel (unless emphasizing)

as it will most likely confuse the listener and may cause misunderstanding. Cruttenden

(2008) also says that overusing the glottal stop even before stressed syllables beginning

with a vowel is a mark of a foreign accent.

34

II. PRACTICAL PART

6 RESEARCH EXERCISES

6.1 Exercise 1

Assignment

Talk about a random topic of interest for about 30-60 seconds.

The aim of the first exercise is to monitor speaker's natural connected speech.

They are given freedom in terms of what they want to talk about and it is completely up

to them which topic they choose as the semantic content is irrelevant for this thesis. The

length of their speech is assigned to be at least 30 seconds but no more than 60 seconds.

Bearing in mind that longer monologue is difficult when not prepared beforehand, the

chosen length seems to be appropriate and provides a decent amount of instances of

both linking and the glottal stop. It is safe to assume that the speech of such length will

show how the speaker usually links when not consciously thinking of the formal

structure. Nevertheless, certain paralingual elements such as unusual intonation or

tempo may sometimes become prominent and alter the speech. Those cannot be

mistaken for incorrect pronunciation and are to be expected of unprepared casual

speech.

It is also possible that some of the Czech speakers will prefer rhotic

pronunciation, i.e. the final /r/ sound will not be elided as is typically done in Received

Pronunciation. Such pronunciation will partially affect the linking research. Therefore,

the material from this exercise will allow me to recognize if the rhoticity is used by the

speaker regularly. If proven so, the junctures with possible linking /r/ will not be treated

as actual instances of linking /r/. Nevertheless, a certain degree of conscious linking

among those speakers can be judged from the presence or absence of the glottal stop

after the final /r/.

Regarding glottal stop, all the speakers are expected to use /ʔ/ relatively often as

they will surely show some hesitation during the unprepared speech. Of all the three

exercises used in the research, this one ought to provide the highest amount of /ʔ/

instances. This naturally means that some of the /ʔ/ will not be a product of bad

35

pronunciation. The amount of /ʔ/ used by each speaker in this exercise will be

calculated and compared in a table. The less proficient Czech speakers are expected to

use /ʔ/ more often than advanced or native speakers.

6.2 Exercise 2

Assignment

Read the following sentences aloud.

1) I tried to draw it without success.

2) The idea of having another beer is unpleasant.

3) It's a matter of life and death.

4) I saw it, pure drama and horror I can tell you.

5) What you think is irrelevant.

6) I've done plenty of evil things in my life.

7) I saw him walking down the street.

8) I decided to follow him for a while.

9) How old is she?

10) Day after day they still are the same.

In this exercise, the respondents are given a total of ten isolated sentences. They are to

read them aloud, independently on each other. Each sentence provides at least one

juncture which normally triggers linking in English. The main focus is on linking in

general, linking consonants and glottal stop, however, certain cases of unusual

assimilation or elision may be commented on as well. In the following lines, I present a

theoretical analysis of every single sentence and its key parts which are the reason why

they have been chosen for the research. The analyzed junctures are underlined and

assumptions about the possible pronunciation are attached in the commentary.

6.2.1 Theoretical analysis of the sentences

1) I tried to draw it without success.

The key part of the sentence is the juncture between words draw and it. /ɔː/ is

succeeded by /ɪ/ across the word boundary. It is expected that Czech speakers with less

36

skills will insert /ʔ/ to terminate the hiatus. More proficient speakers are likely to glide

between the two vowels. Native speakers will either glide or possibly use the intrusive

/r/ as it is quite common in a hiatus where /ɔː/ is the first element.

It might also be interesting to pay attention to the juncture between tried and to

as it is usually pronounced [ˈtʰraɪ tʰə] or [ˈtʰraɪ tʰʊ] with the final /d/ elided in tried. It is

possible that less experienced Czech speakers might pronounce it something like [ˈtraɪt

tʊ] with assimilating the final /d/ in tried and also without aspiration on /t/.

2) The idea of having another beer is unpleasant.

This sentence contains many junctures that can trigger either glottal stop or

linking. The first juncture between The and idea is expected to trigger the insertion

of /ʔ/ among less proficient speakers which may occasionally be connected with the

stress in idea placed on the first syllable. Interestingly, EPD mentions that idea is

sometimes stressed on the first syllable when immediately followed by another stress –

that is not the case here though. Advanced Czech speakers and native speakers are

expected to glide and in such a case, it is expected that the /iː/ in word The will be

reduced to /i/.

The second juncture between idea and of creates a hiatus where /ɪə/ is followed

by /ə/. Less experienced Czech speakers will likely pronounce the word of [ʔof] with the

insertion of /ʔ/ while possibly even stressing the preposition. /f/ is not very common in

Czech and never voiced when represented by graphical f. More proficient speakers of

Czech are expected to avoid /ʔ/ and pronounce of [əv] without stressing the word.

Native speakers are also expected to avoid /ʔ/, but there is a possibility that they will

insert intrusive /r/ as well since the diphthong /ɪə/ often suggests presence of graphical r,

e.g. dear, hear, rear etc.

Another junction between having and another is a simple matter of whether the

speakers will insert /ʔ/ before /ə/ or not. Additionally, it is possible that some less

proficient speakers will insert /k/ in the word-final position in having. Interestingly, the

young generation of native speakers of certain British dialects may have this tendency

as well. When /k/ is added in having, /ʔ/ is bound to occur in another.

The words beer and is form a juncture where linking /r/ typically occurs. Less

proficient speakers are expected to insert /ʔ/ in the hiatus, experienced and native

speakers will most likely use the linking /r/.

The last analyzed juncture is formed by is and unpleasant. Less experienced

37

speakers are expected to pronounce the voiceless /s/ in is and insert /ʔ/ instead of

linking. It may also happen that they will emphasize the word unpleasant and therefore

insert /ʔ/ while incorrectly stressing the first syllable. Proficient and native speakers are

expected to terminate the hiatus by linking, pronouncing [ɪz ʌnˈpʰll ɛz(ə)nt].

3) It's a matter of life and death.

In the first juncture formed by It's and a, /ʔ/ is to be expected of less experienced

speakers. Advanced and native speakers will likely link /ə/ to the preceding It's,

pronouncing it [ˈɪʦə].

The second juncture between matter and of shall trigger the linking /r/ among

experienced and native speakers, less proficient speakers may again pronounce of [ʔof].

The words life and and form the last important juncture in this sentence. It is

again a matter of either linking and to the preceding word or inserting /ʔ/. It will also be

interesting to observe the pronunciation of and followed by death. Advanced and native

speakers are expected to use the weak form along with the elision of final /d/, thus

pronounce life and death [ˈlaɪf ən ˈdɛθ], less proficient speakers will probably

pronounce it [ˈlaɪf ˈænt ˈdɛθ].

4) I saw it, pure drama and horror I can tell you.

In this sentence, there are three junctures with one of them being relatively

different. The first juncture between saw and it creates a hiatus where /ɔː/ is followed by

/ɪ/. Less proficient speakers are expected to terminate the hiatus by inserting /ʔ/,

advanced speakers will most likely glide as will some of the native speakers who may

even insert the intrusive /r/.

The second juncture is formed by drama and and. Again, less experienced

speakers will likely have the tendency to insert /ʔ/. More proficient speakers are

expected to glide, native speakers will either glide or use the intrusive /r/.

The last juncture created by horror and I is a bit different as I is a part of the

parenthetic expression I can tell you. If it were not the case, the linking /r/ would be

expected to occur. In this case, all speakers are most likely going to insert /ʔ/ before I,

which is only understandable based on the semantic properties of the sentence.

5) What you think is irrelevant.

The syntactic structure may play a role in the first juncture formed by think and

38

is. What you think is a subject of the whole sentence and therefore speakers, especially

advanced or native, may choose to insert /ʔ/ before is along with a short pause. This is,

however, optional and by no means obligatory. More proficient and native speakers are

expected to link is to the preceding think, less experienced speakers will likely use /ʔ/

before is.

In the second juncture between is and irrelevant, there is a combination two

important elements, assimilation and linking. First, proficient and native speakers shall

pronounce is [ɪz] and not [ɪs] with the latter making linking nearly impossible. When

pronounced [ɪs], it is almost certain that /ʔ/ will follow, which is expected of less

proficient speakers. Advanced and native speakers are likely to pronounce is irrelevant

[ɪz ɪˈrɛləv(ə)nt].

It might also be interesting to observe the juncture between What and you. In

colloquial speech, coalescent assimilation will usually occur among native speakers,

thus pronounced [wɒʧu]. However, if the speaker decides to emphasize the word you,

assimilation is unlikely to take place. Additionally, assimilation will be avoided in

careful or slow speech.

6) I've done plenty of evil things in my life.

The first analyzed juncture is formed by words plenty and of. The hiatus where

/i/ is the first element sometimes suggests occurrence of the linking semivowel /ʲ/, so the

pronunciation of plenty of could be [ˈpʰll ɛnti ʲəv]. However, the common pronunciation

expected of advanced and native speakers would be a simple glide between /i/ and /ə/.

Less proficient speakers will likely terminate the hiatus by inserting /ʔ/, pronouncing the

word of [ʔof].

The second juncture is between of and evil. As mentioned above, less

experienced speakers will probably pronounce the final voiceless /f/ in of and put /ʔ/

before evil. Advanced and native speakers are expected to link [əv ˈiːv(ə)l].

7) I saw him walking down the street.

The juncture between saw and him is a potentially peculiar one. Regardless of

their proficiency, Czech speakers are expected to pronounce it normally [ˈsɔː hɪm].

Occasionally, an advanced Czech speaker may drop /h/ and use the weak form [ˈsɔː ɪm].

Native speakers are expected to apply the h-dropping. Doing so, it may also happen that

some of them will insert intrusive /r/ and pronounce [ˈsɔːr ɪm]. It should also be noted

39

that intrusive /r/ in this case is not common.

8) I decided to follow him for a while.

The juncture formed by for and a is a common one. Therefore, it is expected that

advanced and native speakers shall both insert linking /r/. Yet, it may still happen among

the less experienced speakers that they will put /ʔ/ before a.

A hiatus may also occur between follow and him if the speaker decides to drop

/h/ in him. In such a case, the speaker will most likely glide [ˈfɒləʊ ɪm].

9) How old is she?

The first juncture formed by How and old is a sequence of the two

diphthong /aʊ/ and /əʊ/. Since the first diphthong ends with a rounded element, a

linking semivowel /ʷ/ may occur, thus How old as [haʊ ˈʷəʊld]. Less proficient speakers

are expected to insert /ʔ/ before old. Moreover, old will most likely be pronounced

[oʊld]. Advanced and native speakers are expected to glide.

The words old and is form the second analyzed juncture. It is simply a matter of

linking the words together or terminating the hiatus by inserting /ʔ/, the former expected

of proficient and natives speakers, the latter of the less experienced ones.

Eventually, the juncture between is and she may be interesting to observe. Native

speakers are expected to apply coalescent assimilation pronouncing it [ɪʃ ʃiː] or even [ɪʃ

ʃi]. The same pronunciation may be expected among at least some of the advanced

speakers. Less proficient speakers will most likely not assimilate and pronounce [ɪs ʃiː].

10) Day after day they still are the same.

The first juncture formed by day and after provides a hiatus. /eɪ/ is followed

by /ɑː/ which creates an opportunity for the occurrence of the linking semivowel /ʲ/. As

was already pointed out in theoretical part, its actual existence is debatable, but if the / ʲ/

sound is prominent in the pronunciation of certain speakers, it may as well be included.

Less proficient speakers will likely insert /ʔ/ and pronounce it [ˈdeɪ ʔɑːftə]. Advanced

and native speakers are expected to link, either via gliding [ˈdeɪ ɑːftə] or a linking

semivowel [ˈdeɪ ʲɑːftə]. Note that the difference between gliding and the linking

semivowel is often indistinguishable for the listener.

The second juncture between still and are simply concerns linking. Less

experienced speakers are expected to insert /ʔ/ before are [ˈstɪl ˈʔɑː], advanced and

40

natives speakers will likely link are to the preceding word [ˈstɪl ɑː] or even [ˈstɪl ɑ]. A

proper weak form of are [ə] in this sentence is not expected to occur, but cannot be

completely disregarded.

6.3 Exercise 3

Assignment

Read aloud the following excerpt from The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

You can first read it quietly to yourself.

“All men have the stars,” he answered, “but they are not the same things for different

people. For some, who are travellers, the stars are guides. For others they are no more

than little lights in the sky. For others, who are scholars, they are problems. For my

businessman they were wealth. But all these stars are silent. You, you alone, will have

the stars as no one else has them.”

taken from: http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/littleprince.pdf

This exercise was chosen to show how speakers pronounce words in connected speech

after preparation. They are given time to read the text quietly first so that they can get

familiar with it. The text is also fairly simple in terms of both grammar and vocabulary.

The aim of this exercise is to get the idea of how much the speakers link when

absolutely prepared.

It may also be interesting to compare tendencies of Czech speakers and native

speakers. At the higher level of English, Czech speakers are expected to link

consistently as it is usually understood as a sign of one's proficiency in the language.

The tendency will be to sound similar to native speakers and their everyday language.

That, however, does not necessarily mean formal and clear English. Native speakers, on

the other hand, might try to sound as clear as possible and even avoid linking in certain

cases to achieve precision.

The text is fairly easy and does not contain difficult words or expressions. The

syntactic structures are also not complicated and should not provide an obstacle for even

the less proficient speakers. Several expressions are repeated which may be used to

observe consistency of a certain phenomenon in the user's pronunciation, e.g. linking /r/.

41

6.3.1 Theoretical analysis of the text

1) All men have the stars, he answered, but they are not the same things for different

people.

The juncture between he and answered creates a hiatus where /i/ is followed

by /ɑː/ (British English) or possibly /æ/ (American English). Less proficient speakers

are likely to terminate the hiatus by inserting /ʔ/, use the strong form of he and also

incorrectly apply the assimilation of final /d/, thus pronouncing [ˈhiː ˈʔɑːnsət].

Advanced and native speakers are expected to link by gliding and properly use the weak

form of he [hi]. Since the first element of the hiatus is /i/, linking speakers may also

insert the linking semivowel /ʲ/ and pronounce [hi ˈʲɑːnsəd].

The second juncture is formed by they and are. /eɪ/ is succeeded by /ɑ/ or

even /ə/ based on the degree of reduction the speaker applies. Less experienced speakers

are likely to insert /ʔ/ before are and use its strong form [ʔɑː]. Advanced and native

speakers are expected to glide or use the linking semivowel /ʲ/ which occurs frequently

after a rising closing diphthongs such as /eɪ/, /aɪ/ or /ɔɪ/.

2) For some, who are travellers, the stars are guides.

In the first juncture between who and are, /u/ is followed by /ɑ/. Less

experienced speakers are expected to insert /ʔ/ and not apply the weak form of both who

and are pronouncing [ˈhuː ˈʔɑː]. Advanced and native speakers will likely use weak

forms of both words and pronounce [hu ɑ] or they may as well insert a linking

semivowel /ʷ/ [hu ʷɑ].

The second juncture formed by stars and are is a matter of linking. /z/ is

succeeded by /ə/, which is expected to be linked to the preceding word. Advanced and

native speakers will likely link and pronounce [ˈstɑːz ə]. Less proficient speakers are

expected to put /ʔ/ before are and use its strong form and also apply the assimilation of

final /z/ pronouncing [ˈstɑːs ˈʔɑː]

3) For others they are no more than little lights in the sky.

The juncture between for and others is an interesting one. Normally, such cases

call for the linking /r/, but given its position in this sentence, it does not necessarily be

[fər ˈʌðəz]. Especially some of the native speakers are expected to prefer [fə ˈʔʌðəz].

Proficient speakers are likely to either link or also insert /ʔ/ before others. Less

42

proficient speakers are expected to put /ʔ/ before others, use a strong form of for and

assimilate the final /z/ [fɔː ʔʌðəs]. The assimilation of final /z/ into /s/ is likely to occur

among advanced Czech speakers as well.

4) But all these stars are silent.

The juncture formed by But and all is included because it potentially may trigger

linking. However, none of the speakers are actually expected to link in this case. The

sentence starts with a conjunction and the structure of the sentence calls for emphasis on

the word all, thus inserting /ʔ/. The expected pronunciation of all the speakers

regardless of their proficiency is [bət ˈʔɔːl], less experienced speakers will probably use

the strong form of But pronouncing [bʌt ˈʔɔːl].

5) You, you alone, will have the stars as no one else has them.

The words you and alone form a hiatus where /u/ is succeeded by /ə/. Less

proficient speakers are likely to put /ʔ/ before alone. Advanced and native speakers are

expected to glide [ju əˈləʊn].

The second juncture formed by stars and as where /z/ is followed by /ə/.

Advanced and native speakers are expected to link [ˈstɑːz əz]. Less experienced

speakers are expected to use the strong form of as and insert /ʔ/ before the word while

also assimilating the final /z/ in both words pronouncing [ˈstɑːs ˈʔæs]. The final

assimilation may also occur among the advanced Czech speakers.

The juncture between one and else is a frequent one as the expression no one

else is widely known and used even among the less experienced speakers. All the

speakers regardless of their proficiency are expected to link and pronounce [wʌn ɛls].

As was mentioned in the beginning, some of the junctures in the text repeat and

therefore the sentences containing only those are not included in the analysis once the

junctures had already been analyzed in another sentence.

43

7 GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS

Three main groups have been created based on the proficiency of all participating

respondents. According to CEFR1, Czech speakers of A2-C1 level have participated in

the research. Speakers of A1 level have not been examined because I believe that the

phenomena tested in this research would not have occurred in their speech. Additionally,

their ability to express themselves would have been strongly impaired by their lack of

grammar and vocabulary knowledge. Speakers of C2 level have not participated in the

research either despite the fact that some of the participating respondents were

approaching Mastery. I believe C2 level to be a complex proficiency which none of the

speakers has shown and when asked about their level of English, not a single speaker

has described their level as C2 after getting familiar with the A1-C2 reference levels.

Most of them have also admitted that speaking was the weakest of their language skills2.

All of the respondents have claimed that they wanted to learn English willingly

and become as proficient as possible for them. I have decided not to include people who

did not have high aspiration regarding English as this thesis is focused on the

differences between Czech speakers who want to master the language (namely its

pronunciation), and native speakers.

I shall also point out that rhoticity was dominant among all the Czech

respondents regardless of their level of English. Unfortunately, only two of the Czech

speakers had the regular non-rhotic pronunciation and both of them had the C1 level.

Two other respondents, one of C1 and one of B2 level, had inconsistent pronunciation in

terms of rhoticity, i.e. they elided final /r/ in certain words but failed to do so

consistently, especially in words with which they were not familiar.

7.1 Group of Czech speakers of A2-B1 level

This group consists of twelve respondents of A2-B1 level. Eight of the speakers are

within the age of 14 to 21, the remaining four are 25, 32, 45 and 49. The first subgroup

of eight respondents is composed of high school, grammar school and fresh university

students who either want to English further at the university or already do so. The

second subgroup of the remaining four respondents have decided to learn English by

1 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment . 2 The four language skills are listening, speaking, reading and writing.

44

attending courses and self-study. Based on their words, all the twelve respondents study

English actively and wish to become better at it.

It is important to say that the A2-B1 level applies to the speaking ability because

some of the speakers probably have a better level in other skills. However, this thesis

focuses on speaking phenomena and thus all the other skills are of less importance. The

A2 and B1 levels have been put together in the group as a result of their ability to

express themselves (as revealed in Exercise 1). They had troubles producing a

grammatically correct connected speech, they were using rather simple vocabulary,

hesitated a lot and their speech was overall very segmented which sometimes hindered

it from being perfectly intelligible.

In the theoretical analysis of the exercises, this group is referred to as the 'less

experienced' or 'less proficient' Czech speakers.

7.2 Group of Czech speakers of B2-C1 level

The second group consists of eight Czech speakers and includes the more proficient

ones. The age of respondents in this group ranges from 21 to 32. Majority of them has

reportedly studied English at the university, some of them are still students with English

being one of their main subjects.

Again, the B2-C1 level assesses their speaking skill while their other skills were

often higher. These speakers had almost no issues expressing themselves in connected

speech. Most of their mistakes were not grammatical or lexical but rather

pronunciational, i.e. incorrect stress placement, unnatural intonation, occasional

incorrect vocal quality etc. Their speech was usually easily comprehensible and fluent.

In the theoretical analysis of the exercises, speakers of this group are referred to

as 'advanced', 'proficient', 'more proficient' or 'more experienced'.

7.3 Reference group of native speakers

The group of native speakers serves as a reference group and consists of people in the

age of 20-40. Their pronunciation, no matter how diverse, functions as something that

the Czech speakers should often be aiming for. As much as it can sometimes be non-

standard, it is nevertheless natural. It is safe to assume that in most cases, the native

speakers would know the correct standard pronunciation, but their dialect or sense of

45

informality have altered their final output.

In this group, five of the speakers are from the Southern England and are either

speakers of RP or under its heavy influence. In order to provide comparison with a non-

Czech and non-native element, the sixth speaker is originally from Austria, but she has

lived in Southend-on-Sea for 10 years now.

46

8 THE PROCESS OF GATHERING DATA

Each respondent was given the assignments along with instructions on how to proceed.

The speech was always recorded during their first reproduction. The gathered material

was then analyzed for each respondent separately and the results were put into tables

and graphs presented in the results section.

It was relatively easy to determine whether the speakers produced /ʔ/ or not.

Presence or absence of linking or intrusive /r/ was also very clear, but the linking

semivowels /ʷ/ and /ʲ/ posed the real challenge. As was already mentioned in the

theoretical part, Wells (2010) questions the possibility of these semivowels being

detected on a spectrogram, namely the difference between their presence and absence.

Unless the speaker produces them prominently enough so that they become /j/ or /w/, it

is sometimes almost impossible to say whether there is a linking semivowel or just a

glide resembling those. I am firmly convinced that in everyday conversation such a

difference is indistinguishable by human ear. Only after listening to the recording

multiple times, I was able to make a decision, but there were still cases where I could

not certainly say either 'the linking semivowel occurred' or ' the linking semivowel did

not occur'.

I also feel that some of the speakers occasionally made a mistake simply because

they found themselves under pressure due to being recorded. People do not usually get

recorded while they speak and such a condition naturally affects their output. It is safe

to assume that all the speakers wanted to pronounce the best way possible.

The assumption or expectation I have expressed regarding the different tendency

to link among Czech and native speaker proved to be true in most cases. Especially the

advanced Czech speakers tried to link wherever they felt appropriate, the less proficient

usually just linked in common expressions. Native speakers, on the other hand,

sometimes did not link where they supposedly would in colloquial speech because they

presumably focused on precise pronunciation. When asked about this phenomenon, they

either did not realize they had done so or replied that they had tried to make their speech

easily intelligible.

Another important thing I would like to mention here is the fact that many of the

speakers asked me to not make their recordings public, especially the less proficient

speakers. That is the main reason why the original recordings are not a part of the thesis

47

as providing only some of them would not serve the purpose. Additionally, a number

was assigned to each speaker in their group as some of them wanted to remain

anonymous and it was also easier in terms of space.

As for the equipment used for the research, the respondents were recorded on a

computer microphone and the files were then stored in the computer. I have analyzed

the files by listening to each of them multiple times. The sound of each recording was

very clear without any disruptive noise or distortion which made the analysis fairly easy

and I believe the results to be accurate enough for this thesis. I have also considered

using more advanced software for the analysis of the linking semivowels, but decided

not to as this thesis does not focus mainly on proving the existence of the linking

semivowels and I feel that the human ear is the most important 'device' for human

speech reception and analysis anyway.

48

9 RESULTS

9.1 Exercise 1

In the graphs below, the amount of /ʔ/ produced by each speaker during their 30-

60 seconds monologue is displayed. /ʔ/ that was a result of hesitation or occurred in the

word-initial position when preceded by silence (beginning of a sentence or after a

logical pause) is not included in the graphs. To make the data relevant for comparison,

the listed amount of /ʔ/ only applies to uses where the speaker decided to insert /ʔ/ when

linking was viable or wanted to emphasize a certain word.

It is also important to mention that each speaker talked about their own topic of

interest and used their own active vocabulary, which could somehow affect the amount

of words beginning with a vowel. Furthermore, many speakers in the A2-B1 group did

not use the indefinite article when it would be appropriate, and thus avoided many

junctures where /ʔ/ would possibly occur if the indefinite article were realized.

9.1.1 A2-B1 results

49

Graph 1 - Exercise 1: results of A2-B1 group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

23

17

25

2022

18

21

25

22

32

18

23

Glottal stop

respondents

am

ou

nt

of

/ʔ/

9.1.2 B2-C1 results

9.1.3 Native speakers results

9.1.4 Summary

From the data listed above, the interference of the mother tongue was undeniably

present among Czech speakers of various proficiency. While the more proficient

speakers had a tendency to use /ʔ/ slightly less often, the difference was only minor

when compared to the amount of /ʔ/ used by native speakers. It is interesting to observe

50

Graph 3 - Exercise 1: results of native speakers

1 2 3 4 5 60

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

87

8

5

9

15

Glottal stop

respondents

am

ou

nt

of

/ʔ/

Graph 2 - Exercise 1: results of B2-C1 group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

5

10

15

20

25

30

19

22 2220

16

28

13

23

Glottal stop

respondents

am

ou

nt o

f /ʔ

/

that even the Austrian respondent had a tendency to use /ʔ/ more often that native

speakers which only suggests that there is a certain interference of her mother tongue as

well. Especially peculiar was her expression in an hour pronounced [ʔˈɪn ʔˈen ʔˈaʊə]

which sounded extremely disruptive.

The graph below compares the average use of /ʔ/ by each group of respondents.

The Austrian respondent is not included in the group of native speakers for this graph to

avoid altering the figures.

As can be seen, the numbers differ greatly. Native speakers seldom used /ʔ/ in a

word starting with a vowel and it was usually a marker of emphasis. The overall amount

of /ʔ/ used by all the speakers was relatively high which was mainly due to the word I

and and occurring frequently in each monologue. Especially Czech speakers had a

tendency to use these words very often and almost always inserted /ʔ/ before them. The

unlikely conclusion is that the respondents wanted to emphasize a lot of words. The

more likely conclusion is that they subconsciously applied the Czech pattern and

used /ʔ/ to mark word boundaries.

This exercise also revealed an unfortunate fact, which was nevertheless

expected. As was already mentioned before, only two of all the Czech speakers had a

consistent non-rhotic pronunciation, another two Czech speakers alternated between

non-rhotic and rhotic and the rest was exclusively rhotic. All the native speakers had a

non-rhotic pronunciation.

51

Graph 4 - arithemtic mean of /ʔ/ use

Glottal stop0

5

10

15

20

2522,2

20,4

7,4

A2-B1B2-C1Native speakers

As for the linking /r/, it was very rare and only occurred among the native

speakers. The total amount of linking /r/ used in this exercise was 3, with 2 of those

used by a single speaker. Intrusive /r/ occurred only once and it was again the same

native speakers who used the linking /r/ twice. The linking semivowels /ʷ/ and /ʲ/ did not

occur in a single monologue. Based on the results, the linking consonants were used

sporadically even by the native respondents which leads to the conclusion that they are

generally not very common in connected speech and some of the native speakers might

be avoiding them altogether, even in cases where they would be viable. However, it

would be naive to draw general conclusions from monologue of only five native

speakers.

9.2 Exercise 2

Below, each of the key junctures is graphically marked in the sentences. When there are

two signs, only one of them can by realized.

ᴳI tried to draw(ᴿ) ᴳit without success.

The ᴳidea ᴳof having ᴳanother beerᴿ ᴳis ᴳunpleasant.

ᴳIt's ᴳa matterᴿ ᴳof life ᴳand death.

ᴳI saw(ᴿ) ᴳit, pure drama(ᴿ) ᴳand horror ᴳI can tell you.

What you think ᴳis ᴳirrelevant.

ᴳI've done plenty ᴳᴶof ᴳevil things ᴳin my life.

ᴳI saw(ᴿ) him walking down the street.

ᴳI decided to follow him forᴿ ᴳa while.

How ᴳᵂold ᴳis she?

Day ᴳᴶafter day they still ᴳare the same.

Legend

ᴳ /ʔ/ in the word-initial position after the absolute pause – obligatory

ᴳ /ʔ/ in the word-initial position

ᴿ linking /r/

(ᴿ) intrusive /r/

ᵂ linking semivowel /ʷ/

ᴶ linking semivowel /ʲ/

52

A total of 28 possible instances of glottal stop with 6 of them obligatory.

A total of 3 possible instances of linking /r/.

A total of 4 possible instances of intrusive /r/.

A total of 1 possible instance of linking semivowel /ʷ/.

A total of 2 possible instances of linking semivowel /ʲ/.

In the following tables containing results, /ʔ/ occurring in the word-initial position after

the absolute pause is not included as it is considered obligatory and was used by all the

respondents.

9.2.1 A2-B1 results

53

Table 1 - A2-B1; G = glottal stop, R = linking /r/, (R) = intrusive /r/, J = the linking semivowel /ʲ/, ᵕ = linking, X = no word-initial vocalic element

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12draw it G G G ᵕ G ᵕ G G ᵕ G ᵕ G

The idea G G G G G G G G G G G Gidea of G G G G G G G G G G G G

having another G G G G G G G G G G G Gbeer is G G G G G G G G G G G G

is unpleasant G G G G G G G G G G G GIt's a G G G G G G G G G G G G

matter of G G G G G G G G G G ᵕ Glife and G G G ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ G ᵕ Gsaw it G G G ᵕ G G G G ᵕ G ᵕ G

drama and G G G G G G G G G G G Ghorror I G G G G G G G G G G G Gthink is G G G G G G G G G G G G

is irrelevant G G G G G G G G G G G Gplenty of G G G G G J G G G G ᵕ G

of evil G G G G G G G G G G G Gthings in G G G G G G G G G G G Gsaw him X X X X X X X X X X X X

for a ᵕ G G ᵕ G G G G ᵕ G ᵕ GHow old G G G G G G G G G G G G

old is G G G G G G G G G G G GDay after J G G G G J G G G G ᵕ Gstill are G G G G G G G G G G G G

9.2.2 B2-C1 results

9.2.3 Native speakers results

54

Table 2 - B2-C1; G = glottal stop, R = linking /r/, (R) = intrusive /r/, J = the linking semivowel /ʲ/, ᵕ = linking, X = no word-initial vocalic element

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8draw it ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ G G ᵕ ᵕ

The idea ᵕ G G ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ Gidea of G ᵕ G G G G ᵕ G

having another G G G G G G ᵕ Gbeer is G G G G G G G G

is unpleasant G ᵕ G ᵕ G G ᵕ GIt's a ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ G

matter of ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ R Glife and ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕsaw it G ᵕ G ᵕ G G ᵕ G

drama and G G G G G G G Ghorror I G G G G G G G Gthink is G ᵕ G G G G ᵕ G

is irrelevant G G G G G G ᵕ Gplenty of ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ G G ᵕ G

of evil G G G G G G G Gthings in G G G G G G G Gsaw him X X X X X X X X

for a ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ R GHow old G ᵕ G ᵕ G G ᵕ G

old is G ᵕ G G G G ᵕ GDay after ᵕ J G ᵕ J ᵕ ᵕ ᵕstill are G G G G G G G G

Table 3 - native speakers; G = glottal stop, R = linking /r/, (R) =intrusive /r/, J = the linking semivowel /ʲ/, ᵕ = linking, X = no word-initial vocalic element

1 2 3 4 5 6draw it (R) ᵕ ᵕ (R) ᵕ ᵕ

The idea ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ Gidea of G ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ

having another ᵕ G ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕbeer is G R R R G R

is unpleasant ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ GIt's a ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ

matter of R R R R R Rlife and ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕsaw it (R) ᵕ ᵕ (R) ᵕ ᵕ

drama and G ᵕ ᵕ (R) G ᵕhorror I R ᵕ ᵕ R R Gthink is ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ

is irrelevant ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ Gplenty of ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ

of evil ᵕ ᵕ G G ᵕ Gthings in ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕsaw him X X X X X X

for a R R R R R RHow old ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ G

old is ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕDay after ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕstill are ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ

9.2.4 Summary

This exercise proved to be the most interesting by far. On the imaginary scale of

preparedness, it would be less spontaneous than the first exercise but significantly less

prepared when compared to the third. Also, this exercise provided interesting junctures

that did not occur in any of the other two exercises. It could be said that speakers were

forced into using expressions which they would possibly avoid when speaking freely.

This fact allowed me to actually test some of the elements that would not normally

occur in their speech, but most of the expressions, or even sentences, were not unnatural

or overly artificial because that would only harm the authenticity of the respondents'

speech.

As expected, the glottal stop occurred frequently among the A2-B1 respondents.

The B2-C1 speakers linked occasionally but most speakers of that group still decided to

insert /ʔ/ instead of linking in more than half of the cases. Native speakers, on the other

hand, rarely used /ʔ/. Especially interesting was the occurrence of final /k/ in having

which was already mentioned in the theoretical analysis. Two native speakers of various

dialects both pronounced [hævɪŋk ʔəˈnɒðə]. Note that the change of /ʌ/ into /ɒ/ is

common in southern British dialects.

In the graphs below, the use of /ʔ/ is expressed as a percentage for each group.

The graphs reveal that there is a tendency among the Czech speakers to link

more directly proportional to their proficiency. While the less proficient Czech speakers

linked only in 12% of the possible cases, the native speakers did not link in only 12% of

the possible cases. The second graph shows a positive sign of linking slowly developing

with better proficiency, but looking at the gap between the second and the third graph,

55

Graph 5 - /ʔ/ used by A2-B1

88%

12%

glottal stop

linking

Graph 6 - /ʔ/ used by B2-C1

63%37%

glottal stop

linking

Graph 7 - /ʔ/ used by native speakers

12%

88%

glottal stop

linking

the percentage is still far from ideal.

The linking /r/ can be discussed only in the case of native speakers and two B2-

C1 speakers as the rest used the rhotic or hybrid pronunciation. All native speakers and

the speaker No.7 of the B2-C1 group used the linking /r/ in for a and matter of, four of

the native speakers also used it in beer is. The speaker No.3 of the B2-C1 group had a

non-rhotic pronunciation but did not use linking /r/. For the two groups of Czech

speakers, usually only the linking symbol occurs in junctures where either linking /r/

or /ʔ/ was expected to occur, which is caused by the rhotic pronunciation. As /r/ cannot

be regarded as linking in such a case, absence of /ʔ/ in these junctures is simply

recognized as linking. The intrusive /r/ was used by two native speakers in both draw it

and saw it, the speaker No.4 of this group also used it in drama and. As expected, no

intrusive /r/ occurred among Czech speakers.

The linking semivowel /ʷ/ did not occur in any speech, /ʲ/ was used by speakers

No.1 and No.6 of the A2-B1 group and No.2 and the No.5 of B2-C1 group in the

juncture Day after. The speaker No.6 of A2-B1 group was the only one to use /ʲ/ in

plenty of.

9.3 Exercise 3

Below, each of the key junctures is graphically marked in the sentences. When there are

two signs, only one of them can by realized by the speaker.

“ᴳAll men have the stars,” he ᴳᴶanswered, “but they ᴳᴶare not the same things for

different people. For some, who ᴳᵂare travellers, the stars ᴳare guides. Forᴿ ᴳothers they

ᴳᴶare no more than little lights in the sky. Forᴿ ᴳothers, who ᴳᵂare scholars, they ᴳᴶare

problems. For my businessman they were wealth. But ᴳall these stars ᴳare silent. You,

you ᴳalone, will have the stars ᴳas no one ᴳelse has them.”

Legend

ᴳ /ʔ/ in the word-initial position after the absolute pause – obligatory

ᴳ /ʔ/ in the word-initial position

ᴿ linking /r/

ᵂ linking semivowel /ʷ/

ᴶ linking semivowel /ʲ/

56

A total of 15 possible instances of glottal stop with 1 of them obligatory.

A total of 2 possible instances of linking /r/.

A total of 2 possible instance of linking semivowel /ʷ/.

A total of 4 possible instances of linking semivowel /ʲ/.

9.3.1 A2-B1 results

9.3.2 B2-C1 results

57

Table 4 - A2-B1; G = glottal stop, R = linking /r/, (R) = intrusive /r/, J = the linking semivowel /ʲ/, ᵕ = linking, X = no word-initial vocalic element

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12he answered G G G G G G G G G G G G

they are J G G G G J G G G G ᵕ Gwho are G ᵕ G G ᵕ G G G G G ᵕ Gstars are G G G G G G G G G G G Gfor others G G G G G G G G G G G Gthey are J ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ G G G G G ᵕ Gfor others G G G G G G G G G G G Gwho are G ᵕ G G G ᵕ G G ᵕ G ᵕ Gthey are G G G G G J G G G G ᵕ GBut all G G G G G G G G G G G G

stars are G G G G G G G G G G G Gyou alone G G G G G G G G G G G Gstars as G G G G G G G G G G G Gone else G ᵕ G ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ G ᵕ G

Table 5 - B2-C1; G = glottal stop, R = linking /r/, (R) = intrusive /r/, J = the linking semivowel /ʲ/, ᵕ = linking, X = no word-initial vocalic element

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8he answered ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ

they are ᵕ J G ᵕ J G ᵕ ᵕwho are G ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ Gstars are G ᵕ G ᵕ G G G Gfor others G ᵕ G G ᵕ G G Gthey are ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ J ᵕ ᵕ ᵕfor others G ᵕ G G G G G Gwho are G ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ G G ᵕ Gthey are ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ J ᵕ ᵕ ᵕBut all G G G G G G G G

stars are G ᵕ G G G G ᵕ Gyou alone G ᵕ G G G G ᵕ Gstars as G G G G G G ᵕ Gone else ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ G ᵕ ᵕ

9.3.3 Native speakers results

9.3.4 Summary

I am confident about the fact that the text in this exercise was a very easy one.

According to even the less experienced Czech respondents, the vocabulary was easily

understandable and the syntactic structure was not difficult. Additionally, many of the

expressions such as they are or who are repeated which was a perfect opportunity to see

how consistent the speakers were when linking. Also, all of the examined junctures

consisted of basic words and did not cause any issues for the speakers in terms of

pronunciation.

The amount of junctures where a linking consonant or a semivowel could occur

was not particularly high, but some of those were still realized. Linking /r/ was used by

two native speakers in both cases of For others. Rest of the native speakers pronounced

this expression [fə ˈʔɒðəz] under the influence of their regional dialects, only two of

them pronounced the standard /ʌ/ in the word-initial position in others. Interestingly, the

speaker No.5 of the B2-C1 group used linking in the first case of For others (not the

linking /r/ as his English was rhotic), but inserted /ʔ/ in the second [fɒr ˈʔʌðərz]. The

linking semivowels did not occur once among the native speakers, but the linking

semivowel /ʲ/ occurred among two advanced Czech speakers and two less proficient.

However, only the speaker No.5 of the B2-C1 used it consistently in all three instances

of they are. The remaining three, as can be seen in the tables, always applied the linking

semivowel /ʲ/ in the first case but did not do so in at least one of the other cases. This

58

Table 6 - native speakers; G = glottal stop, R = linking /r/, (R) =intrusive /r/, J = the linking semivowel /ʲ/, ᵕ = linking, X = no word-initial vocalic element

1 2 3 4 5 6he answered ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ G

they are ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕwho are ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕstars are ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕfor others G R G R G Gthey are ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕfor others G R G R G Gwho are ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕthey are ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕBut all G G G G ᵕ G

stars are ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕyou alone ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ Gstars as ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕone else ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ ᵕ

fluctuation can be attributed to the fact that its existence is questionable and one has to

make the /ʲ/ sound very prominent in order to give us a reason to consider it anything

more than just a typical glide from /eɪ/ to /ə/ or eventually /ɑ/. The linking semivowel /ʷ/

did not occur.

It is no surprise that the Czech speakers generally used /ʔ/ more often even in the

prepared reproduction. The graph below shows the average amount of /ʔ/ used by each

group of respondents. The Austrian respondent is again omitted.

Each of the native speakers used /ʔ/ twice at maximum, usually in the

expressions But all and already mentioned For others. The advanced Czech speakers

used /ʔ/ in about half of the possible cases and linked in the other. The less experienced

Czech speakers rarely avoided /ʔ/ and used it in most of the possible cases.

59

Graph 8 - the amount of /ʔ/ used by each group

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

14

12,4

7,4

2

maximumA2-B1B2-C1native speakers

the

amou

nt o

f /ʔ/

Summary

The aim of this thesis was to prove that there is a major difference between Czech

speakers and native speakers in connected speech in English. Rather than giving a

complex overview of how Czech speakers of various levels of proficiency link and use

the glottal stop, the thesis focused on displaying their general tendencies in comparison

to native speakers.

Some of my expectations expressed in the theoretical analysis of the sentences in each

exercise proved to be realistic, some did not. I have to admit that I was sometimes

surprised by the pronunciation of native speakers as I expected them to 'follow the rules'

but they simply did not.

Looking back, I also realize that the amount of speakers is far from sufficient for any

complex description of the overall state, but again, the real purpose of this thesis was to

compare tendencies rather than provide an extensive corpus based on recordings of

hundreds of Czech speakers. I believe that the three exercises of different nature

provided enough material to get a complex overview of how each speakers links when

either improvising or when they prepare the speech beforehand.

From my perspective, the results were negatively surprising. It was expected that the

less proficient Czech speakers would rarely link as they still focused on grammatical or

lexical accuracy. While I do not agree with the widely used approach among Czech

teachers of English where pronunciation is less important than vocabulary and grammar,

I still understand the 'product' of such approach. But I expected the results of the more

proficient group of Czech speakers far closer to the results of the native speakers than

they turned out to be. The research showed that even the more experienced Czech

speakers still fail to link in many of the cases where it would be appropriate and use the

glottal stop instead which significantly harms their spoken English.

60

Resumé

Tato diplomová práce s názvem Linking in present-day English se zabývá vázáním v

současné angličtině. Za cíl si klade především ukázat menší míru vázání u Českých

mluvčích angličtiny ve srovnání s rodilými mluvčími. Absence vázání následně

způsobuje přemíru užívání rázu, který má však v angličtině primárně jinou funkci než v

češtině.

Teoretická část je zaměřena na popis nejdůležitějších jevů, které se objevují v

mluveném projevu rodilých mluvčích angličtiny. Postupně jsou popsány jevy

ovlivňující výslovnost slov, která vstupují do větného kontextu, se speciální pozorností

věnovanou vázání a rázu. U každého jevu je uvedeno srovnání s výskytem a užíváním

daného jevu v češtině a jsou vyzdviženy zásadní rozdíly mezi oběma jazyky. V každé

dílčí části jsou také zahrnuty poznatky určené českým mluvčím.

V praktické části jsou představena tři výzkumná cvičení rozdílného charakteru, z nichž

každé se liší mírou připravenosti a obtížnosti. Každé z těchto cvičení je teoreticky

analyzováno a jsou vytyčeny důvody, proč bylo cvičení zahrnuto, a očekávání s ním

spojené. U druhého a třetího cvičení zaměřených na reprodukci psaného textu jsou

analyzovány jednotlivé hranice slov, které jsou klíčovými pro samotné zkoumání. Dále

jsou představeny skupiny mluvčích, kteří se na výzkumu podíleli. Celkový počet

respondentů je 26, z čehož 5 mluvčích je rodilých, 1 mluvčí je Rakušanka žijící již 10

let v Anglii. Zbylých 20 respondentů jsou Češi různé pokročilosti od A2 až po C1. V

další části je popsán proces pořizování nahrávek a přání mluvčích, které se týkalo

anonymity a další reprodukce zvukového materiálu. Následně jsou prezentovány

výsledky analyzovaných nahrávek, data jsou zobrazena pomocí tabulek a grafů pro lepší

přehlednost a orientaci. Každé cvičení je opatřeno dílčím shrnutím a komentářem

výsledků.

V závěru práce se autor vyjadřuje k celkovým výsledkům a hodnotí zjištění vyplývající

z výzkumu.

61

Bibliography

CRUTTENDEN, Alan (2008). Gimson's Pronunciation of English. 7th edition. London, Hodder Education. ISBN-978-0-340-958773

FLETCHER, Clare (1990). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary – study guide. Suffolk, Longman. ISBN-0-582-05386.2

GICK, Bryan (1999). A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology 16 (1). Cambridge University Press. p. 29–54. Source: http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~bakovic/camba_files/phonoloblog/gick-intrusive-consonants-ph99.pdf

GILBERT, Judy B. (2008). Teaching Pronunciation – Using the Prosody Pyramid. Cambridge Univesity Press. ISBN-978-0-521-98927-5

HANNISDAL, Bente Rebecca (2006). Variability and change in Received Pronunciation - A study of six phonological variables in the speech of television newsreaders. PhD dissertation. University of Bergen. Source: https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/2335/Dr.Avh.Bente%20Hannisdal.pdf;jsessionid=70B8A2ABB6D34DC98DBDE9309101BEBE.bora-uib_worker?sequence=1

JONES, Daniel (1962). An outline of English Phonetics. 9th edition. Cambridge, W. Heffer & Sons ltd.

JONES, Daniel; ROACH, Peter; HARTMAN, James; SETTER, Jane (2006). English Pronouncing Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. ISBN-978-0-521-68086-8

KLIMEŠ, Lumír (1978). Česká fonetika. Plzeň, Pedagogická fakulta.

KRČMOVÁ, Marie (2008). Fonetika a fonologie. Doplněné 2. vydání. Brno, Masarykova univerzita Eportál. ISSN-1802-128X. Source: http://is.muni.cz/elportal/estud/ff/js07/fonetika/materialy/index.html

MOMPEÁN-GONZALEZ, Jose; MOMPEÁN-GUILLAMÓN, Pilar (2009). /r/-liaison in English: An empirical study In: Newman, John. Cognitive Linguistics. Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 733–776, ISSN-1613-3641. DOI 10.1515/COGL.2009.031

PAČESOVÁ, Jaroslava (1990). Fonetika a fonologie současné angličtiny. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. ISBN-80-210-0000-7.

PALKOVÁ, Zdena (1994). Fonetika a fonologie češtiny. Praha, Karolinum. ISBN-80-7066-843-1

ROACH, Peter (2009). English Phonetics and Phonology – A practical course. 4th edition. Cambridge Univesity Press. ISBN-978-0-521-71740-3.

SKALIČKOVÁ, Alena (1982). Fonetika současné angličtiny. Praha, Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.

62

UPTON, Clive; KRETZSCHMAR; William A.; KONOPKA, Rafal (2001). The OxfordDictionary of Pronunciation for Current English. Oxford University Press. ISBN-0-198-60772-5.

URBANOVÁ, Ludmila (1998). A Handbook of English Phonetics and Phonology. Brno, Masarykova univerzita. ISBN-80-210-1728-7.

VACHEK, Josef (1973). Chapters from Phonology of modern English. Praha, Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.

VOLÍN, J. (2012). Jak se v Čechách „rázuje“. In: Naše řeč 95/1, roč. 78. Praha, UJČ (AV ČR). s. 51-54. ISSN-0027-8203.

VOLÍN, Jan - DRENKOVÁ, Leona: Anglický a český ráz před samohláskami (Englishand Czech glottal stop before vowels); In: Cizí jazyky. 2003, roč. 47, č. 1. Praha, Fraus. s. 13-15. ISSN-1210-0811.

WELLS, John C. (1997) Whatever Happened to Received Pronunciation. Medina & Soto (eds.), II Jornadas de Estudios Ingleses, Universidad de Jaén, Spain. p.19-28. Source: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/rphappened.htm

WELLS, John C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. 3rd edition. Pearson Education Limited. ISBN-9781405881180.

Other internet sources:

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/p201-5-lecture.pdf (28. 10. 2003)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipa (19. 6. 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_consonants#Consonants (23. 6. 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_vowels#Vowels (23. 6. 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphthong#English (19. 6. 2014)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ (23. 6. 2008)

http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.cz/2010/11/intrusive-r-in-epd.html (24. 11. 2010)

http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.cz/2010/11/intrusive-r-in-odp.html (25. 11. 2010)

http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.cz/2010/11/intrusive-r-in-lpd.html (26. 11. 2010)

http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.cz/2010/08/linking-semivowels.html (31. 7. 2010)

http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.cz/2010/09/linking-semivowels-ii.html (1. 8. 2010)

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/littleprince.pdf (7. 4. 2011)

63

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: English Consonants

Appendix 2: English Vowels

Appendix 3: English Diphthongs

64

ENGLISH CONSONANTS

source: https://www.msu.edu/course/asc/232/Charts/ConsonantChartFilledIn.html

65

ENGLISH VOWELS

source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/English_vowel_chart.png

66

ENGLISH DIPHTHONGS

source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RP_English_diphthongs_chart.svg

67

68